Is it easier to become a barrister or solicitor?

Original post by FMQ

Yes there is a lot in between, and no, you are totally wrong, these people have about a 1 in 4 shot of pupillage. This is quite a change in tune from your old view in a market which significantly worsens each year.

Actually BPTC graduates have a 1 in 4 shot at pupillage. If you're arguing that all graduates have an equal chance of obtaining pupillage, then you don't really know what you're talking about. The number of pupillages is not declining, and the number of BPTC graduates is not increasing.

Instead of just posting, "You're wrong", as you appear to have done twice now, why don't you argue your case and cite some evidence. Alternatively, you can keep your silly opinions to yourself.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 82

Original post by wildcolonialboy

'

Thanks for the link :smile:

What is the SRA on about? Elitist? No. Elite? Yes!

The reason I become quite irritated by a lot of this is that I do see brilliant students from comps and grammar schools who play by the rules, do well, and obtain training contracts and pupillages from excellent firms and sets.

It seems that those rabble-rousing for the most part are the ones who are intellectually and/or interpersonally incapable of being a legal professional (Iteshi being an excellent example).

This really makes me roll my eyes. If I can speak through the prism of the bar, more than half of pupils are female, and 25% of pupils are BME (while BMEs are 10% of the population). While I wouldn't be so myopic and ridiculous to say that white people are discriminated against (clearly they're not, the 25% probably has to do with the drive of ethnic minority candidates to succeed), the idea that there is in any way a problem is absurd.

With re to the overall issue of salary, there is unfortunately a very serious issue about the pay gap between the top and the bottom. The top does very well indeed, while the bottom (i.e. the criminal bar) often barely earn enough to pay their mortgage, get to where they need to be etc. I'm not well-versed about how these issues work in the solicitors profession, but I expect there is something similar happening.

The 'drive of ethnic minority candidates to succeed'? Hahaha. My word :redface:

For me, this isn't about the colour of one's skin or one's gender, it's about one's background. It's a mistake that seems to be commonplace in modern society. Having met a considerable number of aspiring barristers (and having been at cambridge) I can't say that there are many people one might consider in any sense 'underprivileged', and simply going to a state school is not necessarily an indicator of that. Whether you're black or white or brown or yellow or green isn't the point. If we are to generalise, I feel the point is largely whether you are poor.

It's not necessarily the fault of the bar or chambers or firms, they take on those whom they consider to be the best for their purposes. And it's certainly not only a problem in the legal sector. But more needs to be done to encourage and support disadvantaged candidates, and to say that it's absurd to suggest there's a problem is remarkably arrogant.

I don't have any hidden agenda, I haven't even started applying yet, I'm merely speaking about what I see with my own eyes. And I try to look. A cursory glance at some of the pupils paraded on websites doesn't convince me that everything's just fine as it is. And when I see these guys with oxbridge glitter and 60k awards listing the bursaries they've won at their Inn, I think something perhaps isn't right. They didn't NEED help.

I understand the urge to challenge false perceptions, and it would delight me to be proved wrong, but on this one I think it will take more than a bit of eye rolling from barristers and statistical PR to convince me that the Bar is diverse and open to anyone. I'd say the same about oxbridge.

If I may ask, out of curiosity, how often do you meet barristers whom you would say come from underprivileged backgrounds (broken homes, council estates, history of unemployment in the family etc.)? I can't say I've met many.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 83

Original post by limparswand

The 'drive of ethnic minority candidates to succeed'? Hahaha. My word :redface:

.

Unless you want to argue BME candidates are inherently smarter, or they've been the recipient of positive discrimination, this seems like the best explanation.

I'll read the rest of your post now

Reply 84

Original post by limparswand

If I may ask, out of curiosity, how often do you meet barristers whom you would say come from underprivileged backgrounds (broken homes, council estates, history of unemployment in the family etc.)? I can't say I've met many.

I'm speaking from the perspective of someone involved in the BPTC, but yes; it's fair to say that at the top end of students (1st class honours, the best Oxbridge colleges etc), you see very few people having come from comps. But it is all the more impressive when they do.

And to be fair, it's not the fault of the kids coming out of Winchester and Rugby that they've had more advantages accrue. They're often the recipients of scholarships as well (so not the son of a Viscount, that kind of thing). Should the bar lower its standards to cater to people who have been unlucky?

Reply 85

I don't have any hidden agenda, I haven't even started applying yet, I'm merely speaking about what I see with my own eyes. And I try to look. A cursory glance at some of the pupils paraded on websites doesn't convince me that everything's just fine as it is. And when I see these guys with oxbridge glitter and 60k awards listing the bursaries they've won at their Inn, I think something perhaps isn't right. They didn't NEED help.

I think the issue is that you can't very well demand that people produce a bank statement from their parents to prove that they don't have the money to do a course.

In fact, some of the most shameless people I've encountered have been some public school boy then Oxford graduates who play the providers off against one another, and carry a certain expectation of receiving a discount just for turning up; for gracing us with their presence. Never seen that from Cambridge grads ;-)

Having said that, they are outweighed by candidates who are undoubtedly privileged, but equally undoubtedly intelligent, charming, hardworking and extremely capable.

Reply 86

Original post by wildcolonialboy

Actually BPTC graduates have a 1 in 4 shot at pupillage. If you're arguing that all graduates have an equal chance of obtaining pupillage, then you don't really know what you're talking about. The number of pupillages is not declining, and the number of BPTC graduates is not increasing.

Instead of just posting, "You're wrong", as you appear to have done twice now, why don't you argue your case and cite some evidence. Alternatively, you can keep your silly opinions to yourself.

About 1 in 8 or 9 BVC grads get pupillage (Woods report). On his well informed blog Simon Myerson estimates 1 in 4 DECENT candidates get pupillage. In my experience this is correct.

Your stats cannot possibly be correct given the amount of compounded bar graduates seeking pupillage v the number of pupillages. In any one year 3000 people apply for pupillage (bar health warning) Given that (by your argument) a number go to pre bvc ers - lets say 50 or 60 of those 400 pupillages (sometimes a handful more sometimes less). And lets be generous and say 500 of the pupillage applicants are pre bvcers, that means 2500 bvc ers/bvc graduates are competing for the remaining 340 pupillages. (we are being rough as we dont know how many non bvcers actually apply) That means (as per the woods calc) 12% of BVC grads get pupillage. 12% is one in every 8. Those who fall into your earlier "poor classification" never had a changce so we drop them from the calc. There are at least one of these poor students for every good one. Therefore for everyone else the odds are 1 in 4, as a rough calculation because those with top CVs have a better chance and those with a slightly lesser CV say a poly first together with excellent CV have slightly less.

Enough as this is not the point of the thread

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 87

Original post by FMQ

About 1 in 8 or 9 BVC grads get pupillage (Woods report). On his well informed blog Simon Myerson estimates 1 in 4 DECENT candidates get pupillage. In my experience this is correct. Your stats cannot possibly be correct given the amount of compounded bar graduates seeking pupillage v the number of pupillages.

How old are you? "silly opinions".

No futher discussion from me.

Probably slightly younger and certainly more sensible in choosing the source from which I obtain the data that underpins my opinions on the matter.

Edit: If you want good data, go to the BSB website

http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/research-and-statistics/research-publications-and-reports/

And look at the data for BPTC applicants, BPTC students, OLPAS applicants and the pupillage report (four separate reports).

There are about 1400 BPTC graduates in 2009/10, and about 450 pupillages. About 1800 people were called to the bar in that year, but not all of them are required to undertake pupillage (exempted by the BSB, as is the case for some solicitors, and some barristers from overseas jurisdictions). The market is not "significantly worsening" every year, it fell off a cliff in 2003 in terms of pupillages, but has stayed between 400 and 500. BPTC graduates went up to 1800 in 2007/08, but fell back in the last couple of years.

Considering the amount of dead wood in the BPTC, particularly at some of the newer providers with very high proportions of international students, the number of unsuitable candidates called to the bar, a graduate with a 2:1 from a decent university with good extracurricular experience, mini-pupillages, with reasonable interpersonal skills and who makes good applications has a good chance of obtaining pupillage. Probably something closer to 1 in 2 if they continue to make applications during the 5 year period (and persistence is important... see the 09/10 pupillage report)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 88

Thanks for your replies, so not alot has changed - oxford grads still a bunch of public school blaggers, still next to no candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds :tongue:

Part of what originally turned me off about training was visiting an Inn, and feeling like it was exactly the same as my public school and Cam, with exactly the same types of people with the same accents (not necessarily the same coulour of skin or gender). Ofcourse I feel perfectly comfortable wearing gowns, hearing latin and making what is deemed appropriately courteous small talk, but I like to think I'm pretty normal and I can see how such pomp might intimidate others. It isn't accessible. It isn't diverse. And the focus and attention is, perhaps rightly, on the best candidates, which invariably means that things stay exactly the same.

I do have a problem with the award of scholarships. Or, at least, with the award of funding. Bursaries should be there for those who genuinely require financial assistance. If that means funding a less able candidate because he/she is poor then that's what should be done. These high achievers are probably the best candidates, and are certainly more likely to interview well, but to give them financial help simply because they are good is wasting the chance at least to encourage a small amount of 'diversity' and help those who otherwise would have no chance.

These things take a very long time indeed to change, so I'm not saying that we're not moving in the right direction, simply that there is always more to be done. And god knows I'm one of those public shool oxbridge twirps, so it's probably against my own interests!

Reply 89

Original post by wildcolonialboy

Probably slightly younger and certainly more sensible in choosing the source from which I obtain the data that underpins my opinions on the matter.

Edit: If you want good data, go to the BSB website

http://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/research-and-statistics/research-publications-and-reports/

And look at the data for BPTC applicants, BPTC students, OLPAS applicants and the pupillage report (four separate reports).

There are about 1400 BPTC graduates in 2009/10, and about 450 pupillages. About 1800 people were called to the bar in that year, but not all of them are required to undertake pupillage (exempted by the BSB, as is the case for some solicitors, and some barristers from overseas jurisdictions). The market is not "significantly worsening" every year, it fell off a cliff in 2003 in terms of pupillages, but has stayed between 400 and 500. BPTC graduates went up to 1800 in 2007/08, but fell back in the last couple of years.

Considering the amount of dead wood in the BPTC, particularly at some of the newer providers with very high proportions of international students, the number of unsuitable candidates called to the bar, a graduate with a 2:1 from a decent university with good extracurricular experience, mini-pupillages, with reasonable interpersonal skills and who makes good applications has a good chance of obtaining pupillage. Probably something closer to 1 in 2 if they continue to make applications during the 5 year period (and persistence is important... see the 09/10 pupillage report)

I have reposted since you replied to this. You are simply incorrect.

Reply 90

Original post by FMQ

I have reposted since you replied to this. You are simply incorrect.

Dear oh dear, calm down you two! Egos at the door :redface:

FMQ, if you don't mind piping up, do you think there is still a problem with 'diversity' in the legal profession, specifically with regard to those candidates describable as 'disadvantaged'? I'm only speaking from my own limited experience. It does appear to me to be astoundingly 'middle class', whatever that means these days.

Reply 91

Original post by limparswand

]
Part of what originally turned me off about training was visiting an Inn, and feeling like it was exactly the same as my public school and Cam, with exactly the same types of people with the same accents (not necessarily the same coulour of skin or gender).

Ah see the Inns of Court, for me, are part of the fun. I thought the "settlement" in England is that the ruling class stays, but is reformed slightly by allowing anyone of merit to join the ruling class (rather than pulling down the whole edifice).

In my admittedly limited experience, it is often those from working class and non-traditional (BME, women etc) backgrounds for barristers who are most keen to retain things like traditional dress, forms of address, etc. Now that they've made it this far, they don't want to give up some of the characteristics that made it attractive to them in the first place! People from the upper-middle class feel they have nothing to prove, and so are more comfortable with some of the proposed reforms.

I suspect a lot of working class kids are happy to lose themselves in something that must feel akin to being a student at Hogwarts (is that condascending?)

I do have a problem with the award of scholarships. Or, at least, with the award of funding. Bursaries should be there for those who genuinely require financial assistance. If that means funding a less able candidate because he/she is poor then that's what should be done. These high achievers are probably the best candidates, and are certainly more likely to interview well, but to give them financial help simply because they are good is wasting the chance at least to encourage a small amount of 'diversity' and help those who otherwise would have no chance.

I do agree with you there. I do think it's slightly obscene when someone who who hails from the most expensive part of London obtains (and accepts!) a full scholarship from an Inn, having been to a public school and oftentimes having obtained a very good pupillage. But I think the better way to go about this is to deal with the quality of candidates that the Inns and chambers deal with. More scholarships for working class kids to go to public schools, more assistance so they can achieve academically etc etc

These things take a very long time indeed to change, so I'm not saying that we're not moving in the right direction, simply that there is always more to be done. And god knows I'm one of those public shool oxbridge twirps, so it's probably against my own interests!

Ha! Yes, you're right that there is a lot more to be done.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 92

Kessler`

11

1 in 4 of all candidates getting pupillage? I think not. I'd have been quite happy taking those odds on, three years ago.

1 in 4 of all decent candidates getting pupillage over the whole course of their application history? Far more consistent with what I, and my contemporaries, have experienced. There's a real danger in taking the statistics and comparing number of BVC grads/applicants with the number of pupillages available. Those that don't get in the first year keep reapplying, boosting the number further up. The ratio of interview applicants per pupillage place alone demonstrates that the odds are ridiculously high!

Reply 93

Original post by limparswand

Dear oh dear, calm down you two! Egos at the door :redface:

FMQ, if you don't mind piping up, do you think there is still a problem with 'diversity' in the legal profession, specifically with regard to those candidates describable as 'disadvantaged'? I'm only speaking from my own limited experience. It does appear to me to be astoundingly 'middle class', whatever that means these days.

I personally do not think there is a huge problem with "diversity" at the bar now, but it depends what you mean by this. Of course at the older end it is a more middle class beast but that is unchangable as thats where we are. At the junior end there are all sorts of barristers. I would say there are possibly some issues in social mobility. There are still many "posh" people but that is inherent of other things (better grades through smaller classes at school, the confidence of the private education system, lots of obvious and subtle things even down to the way one talks).

But age race etc definately not. I know on my course losts of people used to say "its because im old" "its because I am black" "its because I went to a bad school". But in these specific instances the people were just not bright/good enough. Whenever I went to pupillage interviews there were always plenty of different people. Its a profession where there are very few places so genuinely the people who have the best CVs combined often with say a mini pupillage where you have made an impression will get the seat whether you are old, disabled, chinese . There is nothing greater to it than that. I am older and never felt it was an issue. An Indan friend never thought ethnic origin was an issue for her yet had other indian people moaning at her it was - despite the stats showing the ethnic per capita population of the bar is far greater than the general populace so diversity in ethnicity is certainly, proveably, not an issue.

As I say i feel social mobility can be a problem although there are plenty of people from poorer schools who have made it so who knows?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 94

Kessler`

11

Also, I'll say something else. I'm absolutely sick and tired of people going on and on about "oxbridge twerps" and ranting about how the whole system is elitist and prejudiced against them. Reverse snobbery is just as bad, and destructive to the Bar, as top-down snobbery. There are, just as in any recruitment process, going to be people who try to use their background to their advantage, just as there will be people who fight extremely hard to overcome any disadvantages. The latter tend to be the people that succeed, because they recognise their disadvantage and, rather than trying to smear the process/others, put in the effort so that nobody cares about where they came from. Applicants with a chip on their shoulder are not helping themselves in any way. You're so fixated on the perceived unfairness that you are blind to your own failings.

Furthermore, do not assume that everyone who goes to a public/fee-paying school and/or oxbridge is rich, lazy or a snob. It is not true, and you demean yourself by making those sorts of assumptions.

Reply 95

Original post by Kessler`

Applicants with a chip on their shoulder are not helping themselves in any way. You're so fixated on the perceived unfairness that you are blind to your own failings.

I'm not sure who this comment is directed at, but I think it's fair to say that there is an issue with the background of those who successfully pursue a career at the bar. Public school students who didn't obtain a scholarship for their school fees make up a disproportionate number of successful pupillage applicants.

Furthermore, do not assume that everyone who goes to a public/fee-paying school and/or oxbridge is rich, lazy or a snob. It is not true, and you demean yourself by making those sorts of assumptions.

No one said they are! Easily a majority of the students I deal with who are public school + Oxbridge are intelligent, capable and hard-working. But there are a few who take the piss, who are clearly no more intelligent or hard-working than an equivalent student at Bristol or Warwick but appear to stand a much better chance (you have sets which have never had a non-Oxbridge tenant or pupil)

No one is blaming the students themselves (well, excepting a few ridiculously self-centred ones who take the piss in a very big way; I've seen more students from public schools rather aggressively asking for discounts and bursaries than Oxbridge grads who went to comps). It's more a general comment on the education and class system in England than something directed at individuals.

Also, I'll say something else. I'm absolutely sick and tired of people going on and on about "oxbridge twerps" and ranting about how the whole system is elitist and prejudiced against them. Reverse snobbery is just as bad, and destructive to the Bar, as top-down snobbery.

Re twerps, I think limparswand said it in a self-deprecating way.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 96

Original post by FMQ

That means (as per the woods calc) 12% of BVC grads get pupillage.

A fair question would be what proportion of people with what most of us consider a reasonably CV do obtain pupillage? It's impossible for anyone to say with certainty, but the 1 to 4 figure cannot possibly be useful because it includes all sorts of unsuitable candidates who are applying as non-law graduates in the second year of their undergraduate degree, people who have not done mini-pupillages, marshalling, may not have even had any legal experience.

It also includes a lot of international students. The English bar is undoubtedly competitive; perhaps even the most difficult profession to enter in the world. But an overemphasis on how competitive it is for students with reasonable prospects helps no one.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 97

Er, yeah Kessler, are you having a go at me in particular?! Chillax bro :cool:

I don't feel guilty or ashamed about my background. I was fortunate enough to have my schooling paid for by my family, but I am not 'rich' and I had to support myself through uni and beyond. I live in London and have always had friends from different backgrounds, and I have a good idea about the 'real world' and how different it is to what you see at public school, uni and the Inns. My point isn't about me apologizing for being privileged. In my limited experience, I genuinely do not see the 'diversity' of which so many lawyers seem to love to speak.

Yes it's an old theme and there are many cliched opinions unsubstantiated by fact, or even experience. It is indeed tempting to want to challenge the orthodoxy, which is very much that the bar is crusty, old and predominantly public school. But these are mere caricatures. I am at least trying to develop an understanding based on what I see and not just adopting a view because it fits with my preconceptions and personal bias. Either way, it is certainly worthy of discussion beyond inelegantly dismissing what someone has to say as contrived because you want to have something interesting to say!

Perhaps this was not the theme of the thread, but one could argue that the answer to the OP's question depends to an extent on where a candidate is coming from. See what I did?

Reply 98

Original post by FMQ

As having been to city, and now a practicing solicitor who is aware just who is and who is not being recruited by the many chambers we use, through contacts at my inn, through actually being in the profession (as opposed to being completely unqualified and working in admin in a law school where the statistics are skewed) i think i am better placed to comment.

By which you mean to say you're a bitter failed barrister with a massive chip on his shoulder.

Edit: I should clarify the failed barrister bit, you didn't actually qualify after the BPTC, so failed aspiring barrister would be more appropriate.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 99