Lawyer 2B shows A-level students the way
Most law firms say they want to attract more diverse bodies of trainees from outside the traditional talent pools, but the majority of diversity programmes still focus primarily on attracting university students.
The problem with this is that by the time firms come into contact with university students, a raft of potentially promising future lawyers will already have been cut out of the equation.
Which is where The Lawyer’s sister magazine Lawyer 2B comes in. For the second year running the publication organised a careers day for first-year A-level students taking part in the Government’s ‘Gifted and Talented’ programme, which encourages bright youngsters to apply for university through a series of workshops and mentoring schemes.
Top law firms, including Freshfields?Bruckhaus Deringer and Linklaters, were on hand to guide the students through a range of topics, including the structure of the legal profession and how to make successful applications.
Simmons & Simmons graduate recruitment adviser Sophie Binney, who gave a presentation at the event on how the City works, said it was important to arm promising students with the knowledge they needed to enter the profession before they apply for university.
“We’re very keen to make sure that we get the right graduates into the firm from a diverse background,” she said. “We want people from different socioeconomic backgrounds and it’s great to get involved with students this early on to make sure they start paying attention to their grades now.”
More than 300 students descended on Kaplan Law School over two days from 2 March to make sure that law was for them and to see if they too could follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama. (Sixty-eight per cent of the students said they aspired to be like the new US president, with only 6 per cent admitting they would most like to be Elle Woods from the film Legally Blonde.)
Student Marjan Jafari from Harrow College in Middlesex said the day gave her a great insight into what being a lawyer involved and what steps she needed to take to gain a training contract in the future.
“Students from wealthier backgrounds are more likely to succeed in their dreams of becoming a lawyer, but something like this gives us the information to compete with them,” said the 18-year-old.
Leslie Wilson, an A-level law teacher at Harrow College who took some of his class to the event, confirmed that many A-level students were unaware that what they were doing now would impact on their futures.
“This event allows firms to say, ‘This is how you can get through to working for us’, and that gives hope to the students,” he said. “Out there the general impression is that it’s an impossible field to succeed in, but something like this gives them real hope.”
Out of the students who attended the event, only 43 per cent said their parents had gone to university, so for many the world of higher education is an unknown quantity.
Couple this with the fact that getting a training contract depends on good A-level grades, an excellent degree and a CV bulging with pro bono work and vacation scheme placements, and some students just do not stand a chance.
Many of the youngsters at the event were about to start applying to universities to study law, without realising they could convert a non-law degree with a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL).
Seventeen-year-old Danielle Nash from St Charles Sixth Form College in West London said: “I was surprised to find out that you don’t need to study law to become a lawyer. It’s better because if you don’t actually want to study law you can study something that you enjoy and then get a really good grade.”
Of the students surveyed, 42 per cent said they were planning to apply to Oxbridge because they perceived it as a surefire way to secure a training contract.
Daniel Harris from Harrow College said: “I always thought that you had to go to Oxford or Cambridge to become a lawyer, but the law firms explained to us that you can go to a normal university and, as long as you do well, you can then go on to become a lawyer.”
Seventeen-year-old Alhasan Awad from St Charles College summed the event up perfectly.
“I was in the dark before because I didn’t know what route to take,” he said. “But now you realise how easy it could be if you just put in the effort.”
Other firms that took part in the event this year were Addleshaw Goddard, Bircham Dyson Bell, Clyde & Co, CMS Cameron McKenna. Hammonds, Mayer Brown and Norton Rose.
Why the Lawyer 2B careers day was needed
Husnara Begum, editor, Lawyer 2B
There is no denying that law firm graduate recruitment teams are taking diversity more seriously than ever before. Indeed, there appears to be no shortage of initiatives designed to help students from so-called ‘non-traditional backgrounds’ enter the profession.
The problem with many of these schemes, however, is that they are aimed at students who are already at university. For some state school students, this could be a case of too little, too late.
That is why it is crucial for aspiring lawyers to have access to specialist careers advice before they apply to university. In recognition of this, in September 2005 The Lawyer and Lawyer 2B launched an annual careers guide aimed at A-level students.
To supplement this, last year we also launched a careers day for around 200
Year-12 A-level students. Due to its success we decided to run another event this year,with Kaplan Law School hosting.
The careers day is designed to be both inspirational and aspirational. We want students who think a career in law is beyond their reach to walk away more determined. But we also want them to recognise the importance of securing stellar academic results and gaining work experience before starting university.
Although it should not be the case, which university a student attends continues to play a crucial role in determining whether they are able to enter the legal profession.
The careers day is open to all ‘Gifted and Talented’ Year 12 A-level students attending state schools and sixth-form colleges in Central and Greater London.
After much internal debate, we decided against inviting only ethnic minority students, because in our view diversity also encompasses class.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (31)
Anonymous | 11-Mar-2009 4:33 pm
LLB
This debat is all very well, it does however ignore the very variable quality of LLBs drom diferant insttutions
When recruiting for TCs I have a slight preference for LLB but only if (a) they enjoyed it (b) it was of excelant quality
My esperience has been that if (a) and (b) are not met the advantage of the LLB is ilusory
I would rather recruti someone with a pass degree than a 2.2 because you don't often get a 2.2 without doing some work , and if you are bright with that amount of work you should have got a 2.1 thus you are likely to be pedestrian
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2009 9:15 am
Career bashing
Having graduated with a 2.1 in classics more than 25 years ago I went on to study a CPE (the forerunner of the GDL) and then qualified as a solicitor in city firm. I have been a partner for over 17 years and never once have I had cause to regret studying classics instead of law. Indeed in my experience the ability to solve a legal problem through careful analysis and to communicate in well structured and grammatically correct English (along with a heavy dose of pragmatism) have been more useful in my career than a detailed knowledge of the English penal system (or any of the other more archane areas involved in the academic study of law). Perhaps the arguments of some of the posters would have been more persuasive (and certainly better expressed) had they had a broader education.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2009 1:56 pm
So damn militant
Look, why can people doing the GDL not realize that this course is not as good as an LL.B. That is a fact! I considered doing history and ancient history at uni, and if I had then subsequently done the GDL, I would openly admit that the GDL isn't the same. Why are these gdl types so damn militant about this course? Why can they not admit that a GDL cannot equal a LLB? I really do not think it is fair that the GDL students can bypass LLB sudents in terms of training contracts. I have a friend who did the BVC, he studied law with German at Oxford and got a 2.1 and cannot find a pupilage. Yet a friend of his who was on the BVC with him, a GDL type who studied french, who did not have a clue what the difference between ABH, GBH, common assault etc was, managed to secure a pupilage. Oxford is one of the best uni's in the UK. Law is one of the best degrees. How therefore can a GDL type bypass somebody of this calibre, and also somebody who has done so much mooting and work experience. It just doesn't seem to make sense. I think that if somebody is wanting to convert to law they should do the LLB in two years thing, not the gdl.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 12-Mar-2009 4:40 pm
LLB v GDL
I completely disagree that not studying a law degree shows a lack of commitment to a career in law. I am sure there are hundreds of 18 year olds who choose to study law at university simply because they do not know what they want to do with their lives and law sounds like a good bet, or are pushed into it by overbearing parents. In my view, electing to study the GDL, having already studied for a first degree, shows an equal if not greater level of commitment. In any event, I think that graduate recruiters look for much firmer evidence of commitment to law, e.g. work experience or related voluntary work. With no disrespect whatsoever to those who studied law at university (which I wil admit did entail far greater input than my modern languages degree), lawyers with a non-law background can bring additional skills to the job, for example languages, as in my case. All of my colleagues know the law, but not all of them are able to communicate with non-English speaking clients. I understand the frustration of law graduates beaten to jobs by those who may have studies a less challenging degree, but I seriously doubt that the top firms would consider an applicant with a so-called "Mickey Mouse" degree.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
BlatantAbuse | 12-Mar-2009 8:53 pm
-
I'm going to come and say it, I know it's painful for you all to hear it but (having studied part of the GDL due to the problem with the Land Law offered by QUB in NI) the GDL is a joke. It's a Mickey Mouse course dreamed up to, by and large, give a chance for employment to unemployable people who wanted to study a painfully easy course so they could spend three years of their life drunk and still come out with a first.
The averge GDL student hasn't studied economics, business, or any other remotely relevant or academically rigorous course, they've studied nonsense like Byzantine Studies, Golf Course Management or Dog Turd In The Street Studies (Classics).
There's no quick fix conversion courses for virtually every other profession so there's no reason why there should be one for law.
If you're not of a high enough academic calibre then you shouldn't be a lawyer, it's not that hard to get the minimum A Levels for most unis. It's not as if most GDL students have any reason to want to be a lawyer, such as having worked as a paralegal or similar position for a while; the average GDL student wants to be a lawyer because there's no demand for people with joke degrees (except maybe in the circus).
And as for peoples' circumstances, if they can afford to study a degree then there's no reason why they can't study a law degree - law attracts the same fees as every other course at a uni.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HTG | 16-Mar-2009 3:54 pm
GDL v LLB
1. Commitment – many law students choose to pursue non-law careers after studying law. Equally, many non-law students choose to pursue legal careers after studying a non-law degree. This ‘commitment’ idea is nonsense – there are plenty of committed people from both sides, and equally plenty who lack commitment. In any event, one could easily make the argument that a non-lawyer who researches the law and commits to a career that means starting from scratch and studying for a further 2 years is at least as committed as a law student. Perhaps the average law student has been commitment to a legal career for longer, but so what? Candidates are not measured on how long they’ve wanted to be a lawyer, but on their intelligence and potential.
2. Quality – no one here is seeking to claim that the GDL provides a more rigorous legal education than an LLB. In fact, the purpose of the two courses is different. A GDL seeks to provide a basic level of legal knowledge that will enable students to understand the LPC. The LLB seeks to develop various skills including research, analysis, persuasive writing etc in addition to providing students with legal knowledge. Graduates on the GDL have already developed the skills part of the LLB on their undergraduate courses. In terms of how 'difficult' the courses are, I found law required little work. By way of comparison, the GDL involves studying 7 subjects simultaneously, as well as learning about legal research and doing coursework, whereas the first year of the average LLB involves 3 subjects plus and ‘introduction’ worth 30-odd credits, and it doesn’t even count!
3. TC recruitment – let’s apply a little common sense here. Law firms are professional organisations with plenty of experience in selecting candidates with the necessary skills and potential to meet the needs of the business - ie good future lawyers. If the LLB made for better lawyers, firms simply wouldn’t recruit non-law students. It costs firms more money to recruit non-lawyers as they have to sponsor an additional year of study and pay for an extra course, so they must (based on their experience, one has to assume) believe that non-law students represent a good portion of the candidates with the greatest potential to make good lawyers. I have yet to come across a GDL convert at my firm who did anything other than a respectable undergraduate course, be it sciences, politics and philosophy, languages or history.
4. JD in the USA – the fees alone cost upwards of $30k/year, so you’re looking at taking on $120k+ of debt to fund the course and living expenses for 3 years. Firms don’t sponsor you for this, whereas UK trainees (at least law grads) can get sponsorship and start earning after the first year. I discussed this recently with a US qualified friend (who gots the relocation allowance and fat salary etc before moving inhouse), who said that a) the billable targets (ie the minimum!) in New York can be upwards of 2400hours/year compared to 1600-1700 at many City counterparts, b) you don’t necessarily get paid holiday – you can take time off, but that just makes it harder to meet your billable targets, and consequently hit bonus levels, c) 3 years on from starting the LPC or JD, a UK NQ has 2 years of practical experience of law across several different areas, whereas a US counterpart has no experience and doesn’t get to try out different areas of law when they start. Yes, the US guys earn more, but you don’t get the breadth of experience, training, support services (IT, secretarial, professional support lawyers etc), benefits (canteen, onsite gym etc) or work/life balance that you get in a UK firm. That’s fine if you’re only interested in the cash, but the reality of actually working 9:00-23:00 and two full weekends a month is not pleasant and leaves little time for actually enjoying your 20s.
PS – As someone who went the LLB route, I found it immensely irritating that non-l
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Mar-2009 10:34 pm
Well done Lawyer 2B
I am a solicitor at a top 15 firm and subscribe to The Lawyer. I have just read the Backchat comments and am disappointed by many of the comments I read today.
I was state school educated then went on to university to study Politics. After a few years working in the world of politics I decided to do what was then the PGDL. The first time I realised that my ex poly university was not “good enough” was when I decided to apply for training contracts.
My parents are immigrants who did not study in this country and did not go to university. They were unable, therefore, to offer me the necessary guidance on university selection etc. Any guidance to assist those like me is greatly appreciated. My path to the firm I am currently at would have been so much easier had this guidance been available when I was doing my A levels.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Mar-2009 4:24 pm
General views/banter
That kind of blank eyed ignorance from City Lawyers makes my point entirely. Get out in the real world!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 31-Mar-2009 11:59 am
Are Hello Kitty and Blatant Abuse the same person? Or is it just law students at Queen's with their wayward land law subjects that are venomously opposed to the GDL conversion route?
Hello Kitty was in previous discussions on Legal Week bemoaning the fact that GDL types were 'overstepping' law students. Hello Kitty couldn't get a training contract, bless! How frustrating - to reach the dizzying heights of academic achievement (or, if you are to apply the same intellectual snobbery exposed above, getting into the UK's 31st (Sunday Times), 46th (Guardian) or 34th (Independent) ranked university) and then be turned down by recruiters.
Perhaps it is because despite that poster's outstanding academic achievements (with an MA in Human Rights Law, no less) recruiters are looking for academic ability as a basic entry condition, and, once this box is ticked, are more concerned with a whole range of other personal, practical, commercial and legal skills.
The idea of spending time with someone who can get so ludicrously animated by the different routes to the profession's entry may have tainted the success of their applications and/or interviews.
To qualify the above I confess to GDL entry. I agree that it is not as academically rigorous as a three year law degree - to claim anything of the sort would be ridiculous. It is a single year crammer course. But I thought my 1st class honours from the LSE combined with a commendation in the GDL and a distinction in the LPC were sufficient to demonstrate academic ability. I then differentiated myself with a plethora of work experience, outside interests and positions of responsibility. The multiple magic and silver circle TC offers I picked up suggest recruiters agreed.
If people with LLBs are being 'overstepped' perhaps they should concentrate on improving their CVs rather than wasting time pouring bile on comment sites and snarling at others who have managed to get TCs and actually practice law.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
anonymous | 31-May-2009 7:22 pm
absolutely get real these people speak absolute nonsense they do not accept people from poorer backgrounds or from ethnic minority camps. I know 2 students, one has much better qualifications and education but she was ethnic minority and she was rejected yet a white girl from he same year worse grades no experience and she was accepted. Funny that!
These law firms need to stop suggesting that people from ethnic minority camps will be accepted into law firms if they have the necessary qualifications this is simply not true... kids go out and seek a profession in medicine or psychology or teaching where there really is no discrimination.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment