Revealed at last: details of the Legal Education and Training Review

  • Print
  • Comments (7)

Readers' comments (7)

  • The problem with a wholesale review like this is that it becomes just a talking shop and by the time things happen the horse has already bolted.
    The Law Society admits that too many students are being duped into taking courses that will be of no benefit to them in the future. The business of law is changing and legal training is an essential part of that.
    I would agree that re-accreditation is important. Unfortunately too many of the people let things slip and think that they can continue to earn maga-sums for doing very little.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So the SRA say the LETR report will form backdrop for the authority’s forthcoming reforms - "later in the year". For someone contemplating self-funding a GDL (and later LPC), should I be thinking about postponing this gamble until there's a clearer vision on alternative pathways to qualification? Access and mobility... still sounds like a pipe dream

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "There is too much negative talk in the sector at the moment"

    Of course you're going to say that Mr Savage. That's because you want everyone to stop focusing on the absolute omnishambles in the legal education sector that is directly caused by LPC providers like yours shamelessly enrolling thousands too many students onto the LPC than there are training contracts every year. You do so by advertising inflated job prospect figures to potential LPC'ers in order to maintain the influx of students and your own profits.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is another area where lawyers need to learn from accountants. The requirement for two years of study before you begin work is a nightmare for everyone involved: students often end up spending a fortune on various courses and firms have to recruit two years in advance and have a limited say in the subjects studied.

    As someone who has just finished the LPC it is a joke. It is easy to get marks in the 80s with minimal work even whilst leaving the exams with almost an hour to go. Law firms should spend some time watching what their future trainees have to do on the LPC, it wouldn't be around for long if they did!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is just in reply to Jenny. Self-funding the GDL and LPC is a risk, and not an insignificant one. And I am speaking as someone who, along with family support I must admit, has done just that. I was fortunate to be able to obtain a training contract during my time on the LPC but out of the 20 people in my core module class, at the end of the LPC, only 4 of us had training contracts in place and I only know of one more who has obtained a training contract in the 2 years since then. No doubt you will have realised that there is no limit on the number of places offered on LPCs, unlike the limited number of training contracts, and it is a real issue. However the majority of firms recruit 2 years in advance, or at least one. While the availability of funding has massively reduced, if you are going to self-fund I would strongly recommend only funding the GDL before you apply for training contracts and then only undertake the LPC when you have been offered one. That will insulate you to a degree from the financial risk to which you will expose yourself.

    Furthermore, while both are expensive (and arguably overpriced), I found the GDL an engaging, interesting and challenging course whereas the LPC I do not think is fit for purpose and I found it to be the most soul-destroying, disheartening and piss-easy year of my life. I will forever regard it as a colossal waste of time and money, notwithstanding the fact that it is a hurdle you must jump to access a training contract at the moment. Perhaps it was where I studied them; I took the GDL at UWE and went to the College of Law for the LPC (I flatly refuse to call it a University; to be formally reprimanded for asking a tutor too many questions about the area of law that they are supposed to be teaching is not the sign of an establishment that wants to educate!).

    Rant about the CoL and the LPC in general aside, unless you can afford to take the courses without any guarantee of a job at the end of it or are happy to not work in law afterwards, I would recommend postponing your planned studies or at least the second part of them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Give me a break. If anything the postgraduate conversion route has too little black-letter law, not too much. If you want to improve the calibre of lawyers entering the profession, dumbing down the course still further and "widening access" so that non-university-graduates can join in the fun is not to be encouraged.

    The proper place to become commercially aware, and to become a good lawyer, is not roleplaying on the LPC. It is in the workplace, under supervision.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A representative of the Law Society has actually addressed a real problem facing the lower end of the 'profession'. This should be headline news! It's not April 1st so I can only assume it is true. BTW - any prospective lawyers reading this please know that the best advice anyone here can give you is to seek life elsewhere.

    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 (7)