Richard Ridyard and Daniel Reilly, LLB students

In defence of the LLB

  • Print
  • Comments (38)

Readers' comments (37)

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Typical GDL graduates that have clearly overlooked the facts set out in the article and then talk hot air, making things up to suit themselves. Not one has addressed the fact that just 6.7% of law students graduate with a first, the lowest on any degree programme.


    "Many top firms take a roughly 50/50 basis." This is not the case as it states in one of the articles mentioned. Where did you get that information and which 'top firms'?

    "I changed my mind about what I wanted to do." Exactly, has clearly shown no dedication to the legal sector.

    "There are also fast track medical degrees you can do as second degree that are shorter than a standard medical degree." Yes but you do not suddenly become a doctor from a 'fast track medical degree' and you must have studied a relevant first degree to be eligible.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Reading between the lines- 'I have not got a TC. It's not fair. Who can I blame?'.

    Why don't you trust law firms to do their own recruitment?

    I am sure you will both become far less committed to the cause if and when you obtain TCs!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One point that should be mentioned is that a law degree is about why we apply the law as opposed to a GDL which is about how. These are two completely different entities requiring more skill for the former.

    A point that a senior lecturer stated to me was that why the old polys do this route is that they will never achieve the academic standards of the old red brick in points of research by their staff so it is a money spinner. The professional route of the LPC/BPTC is purely financial.

    Another significant factor mentioned by the senior lecturer was that during his BPTC he realised that it is all well and good knowing the law but understanding it is another matter and although the professional courses do not really allow for academic debate when it does you can clearly see who has a law degree and who has a GDL.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh dear, my BA English from the University of Cambridge makes me less intelligent and suited to the job of lawyer than LLB students everywhere? Oops! Good job my firm thought differently.

    I do wonder if the writers of this blog just don't like the competition for TCs?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would agree that the LLB has a long history of providing future lawyers with an in-depth knowledge and sound academic approach to the law. This has been known for a long time, and I doubt that anybody would disagree that a first degree in Law is anything but an asset.

    What I cannot agree with, however, is the bad attitude that some (but certainly not all) first degree law graduates have towards those who were perhaps less certain of their future career path as a teenager.

    It is very easy to cast assertions as to the intellect of GDL students, but, as another post highlights, the main elements which will help you secure a Training Contract are personality, aptitude to perform well as a Solicitor, and a proven academic record.

    From my own point of view, as someone with a BSc and MSc, the author's attitude that the GDL is somehow inferior highlights a deeper issue of jealousy and bitterness towards your future fellow colleagues. Aside from being an impressive social faux pas in the office, it comes across as a 'chip on the shoulder' rather than a valid concern with the standard of legal education. The top firms will continue to hire the top graduates, which is a fair outcome all told. Quite frankly, breaking into the profession will not depend on your ability to discredit your colleagues qualifications.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For two students who were so fortunate as not to receive a 'substandard' education in law, your use of the semi-colon seems slightly odd if not completely wrong in one or two places, and your eye-for-detail might benefit from a spell check - "surly"/"surely"? I, fortunately, was on the receiving end of a substandard legal education, so I have no need to apologise for any mistkae that appear in my quikly written; response.

    For me, the worst thing about this debate is that no one has done both. I have talked at length about, and have a great appreciation for, the hard work and dedication that is required by an LL.B in law. On the other hand, the GDL is by no means a walk in the park. Regarding the question of depth of knowledge, how much of the, admittedly interesting, in-depth legal jurisprudence can you recall right now? It appears to me that students who did the GDL are much better at recalling relevant legal principles in class on the LPC. The GDL can be tailored to provide a broad spectrum of legal knowledge that is most relevant to your first years of practice, with a depth that has never left me without argument against someone talking from behind an LL.B. The GDL also provides all the knowledge necessary for accurate legal research, and even throws in the jurisprudence where necessary, too.

    I was fortunate enough to get a 1st class honours in Politics and Philosophy, a course that I thoroughly enjoyed and was able to do because I had the option of the GDL. I always wanted to do law, but saw university as an opportunity and not as a one way road. I believe I am a more talented student, and will be a more talented lawyer, because of the mix of my studies.

    Would the two authors say that any 'low calibre student' (I hate the phrase already) would be able to get a distinction on the GDL simply because you only need a 2:2 in some places to get in? Perhaps a little deceptively, I think I'm looking for the answer: "Sorry, I have no idea, as I have never done the GDL". I'd further reflect that the GDL is notably harder in terms of exam timetable in some institutions as opposed to others. I further hope that any comments regarding course content is backed up by a thorough look at the GDL content at different institutions.

    To the point of the legal profession's demise being, in part, caused by the GDL, I would question the lateral thinking of the authors in terms of their research in this matter. Why would an academic, who makes a living off lecturing at universities and writing books to be published, be particularly receptive to a course that doesn't quite as nicely comply with his career? I'd be very interested to read their opinions on this, and I say this genuinely and not by any means as a provocation.

    Furthermore, perhaps the reason why top universities have not chosen to provide a 1 year course over a three year course, is probably because they would make less money overall, and furthermore, the LL.B, rightly, already has such distinction.


    With due respect, I could not help feeling this was a rather closed minded article.


    Let's see, in a few years time, which of the most feared partners in the City will be proud of the three letters, G, D, and L.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A fantastically thought provoking article, one that I feel demands discussion and debate that extends beyond e-comments - both serious and jovial. Whilst I would rather an LLB, as opposed to a BA or BSc 'topped up' with a GDL, I do see the relevant benefits and advantages to a law firm by recruiting someone who has experiences in other fields.

    Whilst I think that one of the most important influencing factors when talking of someone’s legal ability should be experience; education should not be compromised. An LLB does require an intense study regime and fosters in its students some important morals and skills etc, something that I do not feel a GDL can match.

    I have to consider the ‘Short Course’ medicine course that students can enrol on having studied a relevant science degree. If I was to visit my Doctor and learnt that at A-level they flunked some exams, did a degree in Biology and then were able to ‘top-up’ their qualifications with a graduate degree in Medicine – I would definitely be doubtful of their abilities. I feel that this should also be applied to Law.

    I’m not saying that a GDL is necessarily a ‘bad thing’, but I do think that the ‘idea’ – on paper, is undesirable i.e. ‘Get a degree in anything, scrape through with a 2.2 and then take out a loan and get a GDL’. Ultimately, I think that matters need to be considered on a case by case basis; looking at a person’s full credentials rather than the letters following their name.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There are clearly advantages to both sides of the LLB/GDL argument; having studied the LLB myself, I am inclined to think this is the preferred academic method given the time and dedication factor. However given the fact that I now teach numerous students whom are studying for their GDL's, I feel compelled to add they are bringing an entirely new dimension to the role of a lawyer having studied a different discipline prior to Law - and it is indeed very much welcomed. Furthermore, certain institutions are now offering the LLB qualification, upon passing the GDL; which has proven an attractive option to my students - this I suppose suggests the traditional route is the better?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "By your logic the LPC is offered by substandard institutions."

    That is correct.

    "Chambers don't but that might be generally because they don't offer funding for the GDL."

    No. Chambers can see that the GDL is an insult to the profession and do not believe the majority of GDL graduates are good enough.

    Disclaimer: Oxford University law student AAAAAA A-levels. Have had numerous mini-pupillages with top commercial chambers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A well written article in it's entirety, and I for one, (being on the LLB) couldn't agree more with it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “The remaining two years of a law degree are, strictly speaking, not significant professionally. When it comes to the essentials, a GDL covers the same ground over the same time period as a law degree.”

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/student/article6193484.ece

    Surprisingly, this quote was taken from one of the articles which the authors cited to formulate their arguments.

    I agree that we full-timers acquire a deeper understanding and appreciation of the law than our fellow GDL counterparts as is evident in the large number of modules we undertake in the course of our 3-4 years of studies. It must be stressed, however, that this factor alone, that is knowledge of the law, does not determine our admission into the legal profession. I seriously think you should consider and address the criticisms advanced above as they seem to poke large holes into your arguments in favour of the LLB.

    On a positive note, I found your article a joy to read and strongly urge you to continue contributing to the blog.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting, the writers of this article appear to have great confidence in their intellectual prowess. What a shame that this article is shot through with very basic logical errors - false assumptions, suppositions without evidence, circular reasoning, straw men and occasional appeals to authority. The writers need to bear in mind that the people doing GDL's have degrees and quite often, valuable work experience. If being well rounded is a requirement then I think that many GDL students beat their LLB counterparts hands down. Well that was my experience when we all got onto the LPC anyway. What a very unpleasant, arrogant article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • John | 28-Oct-2010 2:09 pm
    “Reading between the lines- 'I have not got a TC. It's not fair. Who can I blame?”.

    Just to dispel comments such as these, neither of us are looking for a training contract but in fact a pupilage. Further, neither of us have applied for pupilage yet as we are both going on to study for an Mphil with both of us having strong records of mini-pupilage.

    Paul | 28-Oct-2010 2:23 pm
    “The author's attitude that the GDL is somehow inferior highlights a deeper issue of jealousy and bitterness towards your future fellow colleagues. Aside from being an impressive social faux pas in the office, it comes across as a 'chip on the shoulder' rather than a valid concern with the standard of legal education.”

    We can assure Paul, and every other reader that our genuine concern is with the standard of legal education.

    Anonymous | 28-Oct-2010 2:40 pm
    “To the point of the legal profession's demise being, in part, caused by the GDL, I would question the lateral thinking of the authors in terms of their research in this matter. Why would an academic, who makes a living off lecturing at universities and writing books to be published, be particularly receptive to a course that doesn't quite as nicely comply with his career? I'd be very interested to read their opinions on this, and I say this genuinely and not by any means as a provocation.”

    We apologise for not explaining this further, we took for granted that every law student (LL.B or GDL) knew of the late, great Professor Peter Birks. Below is what he wrote about conversion courses:

    "You get what you pay for. You get a large number of lawyers, all of whom have studied, at breakneck speed, just six subjects and always exactly the same six, currently contract, tort, land law, trusts, criminal law and constitutional-cum-administrative law. The six-disease, one-year doctor is unthinkable. The six-subject, one-year lawyer is unknown anywhere else in the world. In Germany, where the competition will ultimately come from, a two-year vocational stage is preceded in the over-whelming majority of cases by five years' academic study of the law, and there is no way at all of reducing that five years to less than four.

    Advocates for the one-year course should be made to list the subjects to which they attach no importance: Comparative Law, Company, Competition, Computers/Information Technology, Conflicts of Law, Consumer Law, Environmental Law, European Law, Evidence, Family Law, Insolvency, Intellectual Property, International Trade, Labour Law, Legal History, Legal Philosophy, Public International Law, Race Relations/Ethnic Minorities, Remedies, Restitution, Sentencing/Penology, Succession, Taxation, Welfare and Social Security.

    A person knows nothing of any of these cannot be called learned in the law. And a practising profession which welcomes people who know nothing of any of them is neglecting its long-term, perhaps even its medium-term future..."

    Anonymous | 29-Oct-2010 1:45 am
    “On a positive note, I found your article a joy to read and strongly urge you to continue contributing to the blog.”

    We thank you for your comment and we hope to do so. This is what we aimed to do, to provoke an open but respectful debate.

    Sasha | 29-Oct-2010 6:40 am
    “Interesting, the writers of this article appear to have great confidence in their intellectual prowess. What a shame that this article is shot through with very basic logical errors - false assumptions, suppositions without evidence, circular reasoning, straw men and occasional appeals to authority.”
    Please elaborate on this as we feel we have supported each assertion with sufficient evidence unlike your comment.

    “What a very unpleasant, arrogant article.”
    We thought this of Rajesh Vora’s article “In defence of the GDL”. We have provided a link to this in order to compare the two arguments.

    http://l2b.thelawyer.com/story.aspx?
    storycode=1004042&PageNo=1&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=10#comments

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I find it slightly amusing how people are commenting and trying to sound either 'above their station' or generally rude.

    Perhaps people should be commenting about the issues at hand as opposed to general syntax, grammar and punctuation errors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "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"



    You seem to be misunderstanding the difference between academic study and vocational courses and your misunderstanding has led you to infer a completely false conclusion. The GDL is a vocational course; most redbrick/Russell Group universities do not teach vocational courses (medicine aside). My redbrick (Bristol) used to have an LPC programme but stopped it. Does Oxford University teach the LPC? Does Durham?

    Thought not.

    You also seem to overlook the fact that whilst it is possible to get onto a GDL with a 2.2 in Noddy Studies, if they will have you and you can pay, this in no way guarantees a training contract at the end. That comes down to personal attributes and a small measure of luck, things neither an LLB nor a GDL can give you.

    If you get this upset about the idea of someone with a degree and a GDL qualifying as a solicitor, I'd love to hear your thought on the ILEX route.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Loving how people are getting abusive over 2 students point of view.

    LLB offers more, deal with.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes you can get onto the GDL with a 2ii but not many people will get a training contract and be able to practice. Most magic circle, silver circle firms take people with 2i and above only in their undergraduate degree.

    In contrast a not insubstantial number of students at Oxbridge get a 2ii in their intercalated year and still go onto practice medicine.

    On the point about where firms recruit their students from . Many firms make a point that they want a nice mix from GDL and LLB. Also the fact that a first is harder in law is a point that I am sure many will take into account when making their decisions. As has been said academics alone are not enough. And just because law is on average harder doesn't mean all lawyers are smarter than their non-law counterparts. Firms can make those decisions in their interviews and their views seem to be that a fair old chunk of GDL students are academically capable of the course.

    What I don't understand about this argument is the complete generalisations. LLB Is better than GDL or Typical GDL graduates that have clearly overlooked the facts set out in the article and then talk hot air, making things up to suit themselves" or complete factual innaccuracies (you can actually become a medic without a particular qualifying degree) etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I got 3 As at A-level in rigo subjects.

    I got a First Class Honours degree at a Russell Group university.

    I got a scholarship at my Inn.

    I got a distinction at the GDL.

    I got pupillage before I started the BPTC.

    Go on, call me inferior.

    There isn't actually any defence of the LLB at all here, just an attempt to make it look good by doing down the GDL on the basis of some statistics and grade information.

    All you actually say is this:

    "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."

    But you don't back it up with any hard evidence. Presumably it wouldn't have been difficult for people with the rigourous research and scientific analytical skills of which you boast to go and find this evidence. You could have spoken to people on the GDL, maybe even looked at the materials provided (many of which are sold commercially or used by LLB students as revision guides). Instead you appear to have relied on a compilation of peripheral statistics and groundless assertions. The entry requirements and overall success rates do not actually tell you anything of note about the substantive merits of the course. That can only be done by comparing the content.

    The argument advanced here ignores that the GDL and LLB are not the be-all-end-all of legal training. They are a single component of a much longer course. The difference, in practice, is of two years, (probably less given that more is studied on the GDL in the space of a year). Is that seriously enough to break a legal career? Hardly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "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?"

    Such a dumb question. Most people don't know what they want to do aged 18 when they choose their career. Many people who choose to do study law don't know at the time whether they want to be a lawyer, instead seeing it as a good degree. Firms would be denying themselves access to a huge pool of talent if they decided to only recruit from a small subset of candidates who were fixated on being lawyers from an early ages after watching Ally McBeal.

    And in the interests of disclosure: did an LLB and went on to work in the City.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I feel that this blog reflects the opinion of the majority of undergraduates studying on the LLB. I personally feel that anyone person who decides to undertake the GLD either did not do as well in their chosen degree and feel that a legal profession conversion is an adequate substitute, or is not serious about any profession especially not one concerning law where the employment opportunities are dwindling. People should take more care deciding their future because their unwillingness to make a decision and committ to it is having repercussions on the futures of others, however indirectly that may be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "I feel that this blog reflects the opinion of the majority of undergraduates studying on the LLB."

    I can well believe that: given the current job climate, not surprised people wish there was less competition.

    "I personally feel that anyone person who decides to undertake the GLD either did not do as well in their chosen degree and feel that a legal profession conversion is an adequate substitute, or is not serious about any profession especially not one concerning law where the employment opportunities are dwindling."

    Ridiculous: most degrees are not vocational. If firms only wanted people who had already decided aged 17/18 that they wanted to be a lawyer then they'd be denying themselves access to a huge pool of talent. That would be a dumb move on their part.

    Plus speaking from experience, plenty of what you do on an LLB has nothing to do with the practical realities of being a solicitor. For instance, my knowledge of natural law does not play a significant role in negotiating points in a facility agreement.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why is it then that some of the greatest judges of England did not read jurisprudence? This ncludes the recently deceased Lord Bingham (Modern History); Lord Wilberforce (Greats); Lord Denning (Mathematics)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • you shouldn't stick to wiki to get your information, Denning studied until 1917 before doing his war service and then going back to magdelen, when he returned he completed his maths degree and worked as a teacher found it boring then studied jurisprudence.

    as for the others i cannot comment.

    for me i can see the point behind a GDL however in fairness to the writers they are rebutting a previous blog which has no evidence to back any assertions, plucks facts from the air and makes comments about why anyone in their right mind would study an LL.B and defending their own course.

    however none of the harsh people who have commented seem to have read this previous article, and decided to ignore any claims of evidence the writers have put forward.

    nice blog to read, nice to see lively debate amongst the new, and flourishing legal professionals.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well this article smacks of looking for someone to blame after failing to secure a training contract. Who are next, minorities and women because of diversity targets maybe?

    As a bit of advice for applications next year, if you want to secure a training contract you might want to consider a couple of things.

    Firstly making obvious grammar and spelling mistakes doesn't help, so try proof reading for a change.

    Secondly nobody likes arrogant people who think they are superior to everybody else. There are plenty of highly intelligent GDL students who can probably run rings round you, so start showing them some respect.

    As for the superiority of the LL.B the content has very little relevance to the practice of law and is rather an academic exercise. The GDL covers the areas that are actually necessary for progression with a legal career, so those coming to the table with a GDL are just as capable in practice as LL.B students. And as for the academics you speak of, who call the GDL substandard, they have a vested interest in protecting their positions so can't really be relied on for an objective opinion.

    With regards to dedication to the legal profession, all that studying an LL.B proves is that you knew what you wanted to do with your life at 17. Those who came to the idea of law a little later in life are not necessarily less dedicated just as those on an LL.B aren't necessarily all that dedicated. I know many LL.B students who are just plodding along towards the profession because of family pressures and many GDL students who are extremely dedicated. Just as there are many for whom the reverse is true.

    Finally in case you are wondering I studied an LL.B and am currently on the LPC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Gosh there are some really bitchy comments here. None addressing any of the evidence put forward by the authors. Instead making false assumptions and personal attacks.

    As Eldon Law Scholar points out, the authors have written this in response to another article which just slagged off the law degree without any evidence supporting their claims.

    I too can see the point of the GDL but must say that the authors have done a good job in highlighting some important points in this debate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don't see anyone complaining that Jonathan Sumption QC didn't do an LLB.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jonathan, I do hope your remedial English classes are going well. Shocking inability!

    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

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (38)