Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The GDL and becoming a Barrister? Is it even possible?

Hi everyone I could really do with some help :-(

So I am a mature student (age 27) and I have a family (two children) but I am also from a disadvantaged background in the North East of England.

I didn't do so great at A-Level because I had to hold down a job at the same time (no money) and also they were taken over a decade ago when they were actually really difficult and so I don't think they are even relevant considering how long ago I took them! I got B,C,C and then a C at AS-Level too.

More recently, and relevantly, I just graduated in July with a high 2.1 (67%) in Crime Science and have always wanted to become a Criminal Barrister. I applied and got accepted onto the GDL with Northumbria which is the Uni I did my degree with but I have recently had to withdraw as I have not managed to secure any funding whatsoever and can't afford to pay for the fees and no one in my family can afford it either.

I thought that being a non-law graduate and so having the Crime Science degree may help set me apart from other, regular law graduates and I am also a volunteer with the PSU at the Newcastle Combined Courts. I hoped all of this would at least help me to get a foot in the door but now I am not so sure.

I could switch to a different GDL provider and get myself in more debt to the tune of £10k to do the GDL but then what are the chances of me actually securing a Pupillage?

I want to do this more than anything and the thought of doing another job is completely depressing and I can't see myself ever being fulfilled in another role but....at the same time I do have a family to consider and bills to pay and so getting myself into pointless debt or ruining my credit rating is just not an option...

Some people from wealthy backgrounds just seem to walk into these professions whilst I've never had to fight so much for something in my life and I've still actually not had any success... Does anyone have any advice that they can give or am I fighting a losing battle...?

Thanks, and sorry for the essay!
E

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Clip

Your chances are exceptionally slim - almost zero.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

You might catch a very small break and get a scholarship or bursary for the BPTC and GDL, but that's as far as it goes.

You might think that this is all you want to do and your life's quest - but I can guarantee you that there are tens of thousands of others who think exactly the same and have a load more boons than you do with none of the disadvantages.

Original post by elaine77

Some people from wealthy backgrounds just seem to walk into these professions whilst I've never had to fight so much for something in my life and I've still actually not had any success... Does anyone have any advice that they can give or am I fighting a losing battle...?

That might be telling you that it's very unlikely to work out for you.

At the moment, someone smarter than you, who went to a better university than you, who has a higher class of degree than you, who has all the same kind of experience as you - will still ultimately be buying a £16,000 lottery ticket that is the BPTC. At the end, they'll have some expensive dinners and get called, but will they get pupillage? It's a gamble.

It's not utterly impossible, but it's wholly unlikely and you have to ask if what you have to offer is really enough to carry you past everyone else.

There just aren't many Cinderella stories out there for barristers, but there are a whole lot of disappointed wanabees.

Reply 2

ragandbone

I would re-think the criminal barrister bit - loads of students seem wedded to the idea of criminal barrister - try and analyse what it is that attracts you to this particular a) area of law and b) barrister role? Make sure it isn't just what you have seen on the telly or films!

Is it justice? Social justice etc? Do research to see if you might get similar interest out of another role - either in or out of law. I mean, what about the CPS? They don't use A levels as a recruitment bar and your

then barrister v solicitor - you will up your chances significantly if you think about solicitor rather than barrister - the routes to qualification widen. The chances of getting a pupillage are very small but you have a lot more chance of getting to sol.

The criminal bar is not doing too well itself at the moment - legal aid cuts means a lot less work for criminal barristers.

I would uncouple your law dream from the absolute dead-set idea of criminal barrister and see if you can attach the satisfaction you think you would get from defending to something else.

This doesnt solve your money problem - it is tricky - most out fits who will pay your fees also require AAB at A level or whatever it is - other than that, you could look at working PT and studying PT - tricky with two kids though, I grant you.

why not try and get a criminal paralegal job for a year or so and reconsider the whole shebang next year? You might try and edge yourself into the area of criminal law which might produce a better income ie white collar crime maybe or proceeds of crime? Fraud? I personally am wary of pursuing criminal law cos there ain't much money in it unless you are a top drawer criminal QC!

Also - read around what you might do with your crim science degree - try and find some actual crim barristers to talk to also! PSU is good experience but civil so you need some crim court stuff - can you shadow a mag and get their take on things?

Original post by elaine77

Reply 3

elaine77

Hi,

No its not what Ive seen on TV, I have a massive interest in Crime and Forensics and intelligence etc..anyway and have studied it twice at university - criminology and forensic science for 18 months then the degree in Crime Science so its just embedded in my background. I am interested in family law too but that is also effected by legal aid cuts.. every law graduate I've spoken to is interested in commercial or corporate actually, I've not spoken to one yet who is interested in the criminal route... maybe they know where the money is lol.

The Crime Science degree is geared towards either legal or public sector/policing work and unfortunately the public sector cuts have obliterated my chances of securing employment there... as for the money, i always said id be the poorest barrister ever which is fine by me because I would do the job for free if i had to, I would be the Pro Bono Queen i want to do it that much!

Ive had a look at lots of paralegal posts but up here in the North East they are either all PI or they all require that you have done the LPC and as it stands i haven't even completed the GDL.. I am having to fill in the withdrawal form tonight and withdraw from the GDL at Northumbria as I've not managed to secure any funding...

I just think its so unfair that people just do not have equal opportunities in life - even though the government preach that people do...

Reply 4

WouldbeLawyer

Hi Elaine,

This is the worst time ever to start as a criminal barrister. I asked several QCs and juniors before making a career change; they all told me to become a solicitor instead if I wanted to do crime and have a) a steady income and b) reasonable working hours. It simply isn't a viable career choice unless you are prepared to earn zippo for a few years after incurring a large debt.

That's to say nothing of the difficulty/luck involved in actually becoming a barrister. One of the QCs was a bencher handling student/pupil issues - she couldn't count the number of people with brilliant academic records who had been left totally dispirited by a fruitless pupillage hunt. Don't do that to yourself for nothing.

Reply 5

Kessler`

Elaine,

I'm a practising (very) junior barrister. I do crime, general civil and employment. What the above say is very true. Anyone applying for pupillage, excepting a tiny minority, has only a 'slim' chance of getting there. Your age is not hugely relevant, most pupils are now around 25-26 year mark anyway, but if you took a less conventional route then you will be required to demonstrate what you have been doing in the meantime. I'm afraid your university and your degree (being both a 2.1 and in a less traditional subject) may hinder you. A-levels aren't usually a problem, but you have to show some academic excellence to contrast the poor earlier results. Incidentally, I took my A-levels around 2004-2005 and saying that they were *much more* difficult wouldn't hold any weight, I can tell you.

The criminal bar is in dire straits, it is true. On the verge of collapse? Possibly, although I wouldn't write it off yet. It is certainly contracting, and less able advocates (often the older generation) are giving way to a keener generation. That means quality is ever-rising, so chambers will be always looking to increase the standards of its pupils and so new tenants. Please don't say at interview that you'd be willing to work for nothing. It's something that is spouted very often. It is both naive (working pro bono but covering the cost of your travel to court, ie £60 train ticket, will grow old quickly) and it is not what chambers wish to hear. Chambers works by taking a cut of your fees, so the pressure is on the clerks to get you higher paying work as much as possible. Their jobs depend on it after all. It's all very good to do loss leaders now and again, or pro-bono on particular cases of importance, but they'll get tetchy if you do it repeatedly. It's also a bad idea, in my view, to specialise into crime-only from day 1. Working in other areas of law returns not only money, but dividends in experience which will enhance your eventual niche.

On your final point, it is possible to come from a poor background and build a practice at the Bar. There are plenty of success stories, and the Inns do a fantastic job of funding deserving applicants. However, it's never handed on a plate. You must constantly judge yourself, create opportunities and build your CV. If you can demonstrate through that drive and commitment, then there's plenty of help to side-step the financial barriers. That is particularly so in terms of GDL and BPTC funding. I came from a poor background (first one in family to go to university), and it helped me get where I am.

Best wishes,

K

Reply 6

nulli tertius

Original post by elaine77

Hi everyone I could really do with some help :-(

May I suggest you read the rather sobering statistics from pages 65 to 92 of

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media/1599997/bsb_barometer_report_112pp_june_13.pdf

Reply 7

Clip

Original post by elaine77

Ive had a look at lots of paralegal posts but up here in the North East they are either all PI or they all require that you have done the LPC and as it stands i haven't even completed the GDL.. I am having to fill in the withdrawal form tonight and withdraw from the GDL at Northumbria as I've not managed to secure any funding...

I just think its so unfair that people just do not have equal opportunities in life - even though the government preach that people do...

So what do you want? For someone else to pay for you to not become a lawyer?

This isn't professional polo or something where only the so-called "rich" can play. This is a situation where there are many many more applicants than jobs, and those applicants tend to be very capable people. Having a bundle of money won't change anything except potentially how much you will sink on what might well be futile.

Let me ask you this - Do you know the way to San Jose? Because that's essentially what you are in for.

Just for context, I have two children and a bit of a dodgy law degree. I wanted to get into practise (as a solicitor). After a lot of trying and failing, I was ultimately given a shot at training - but it would be on the High Street, and I'd have to fund the LPC myself.

I am pretty sure that was going to be either my only offer, or representative of the kind of offer I might get. In my situation, it's not affordable. I can't quit my job and also pay for the LPC and then take training for two years on a fraction of what I earn now and ultimately end up earning less than I did before - all so I can spend the rest of my life having people tell me a pack of lies for 15 minutes, and then spending the next 45 figuring out how to turn those lies into fees.

Reply 8

elaine77

Firstly, I never actually said I refuse to be a solicitor and I refuse to do other areas of law, I simply just stated my preferences which everyone has.

Secondly, saying being wealthy has no bearing is a load of tosh to be honest. I had to hold down two jobs whilst studying for my A-levels as my family were very poor - I don't know any middle class A-level students who have done the same or have HAD to do the same, albeit I don't know millions of people. They also do not need to worry about funding ANY of the legal qualifications to the point where providers of the GDL are actually stating on their websites "unless you have wealthy parents....etc etc etc" and thats not to mention the fact that the wealthier the family, the more connections they will have in the professional world in order to help secure pupillage or TC. In fact, I remember watching a documentary of "how the other half live" a few years back and there was a working class mother on there who had completed all of her legal studies to be a Barrister but had been trying to secure pupillage for 5 years without success... a few phone calls from her rich, successful "other half" on the documentary and she got a pupillage... strange that..as her qualifications certainly hadn't changed and she was still the same person!

Thirdly, why should my University be a problem? Because it is a former polytech? Isn't that just elitist pompousness at its finest though and the exact point I am trying to put across about the legal profession? Its the closest to my home where I have to live as I have children, that is why I attended it and the fact that even people on here comment upon it just proves that the legal profession need to change their filters as they are getting a ridiculously limited view of what people are capable of by filtering the way they do now.

As for my degree being irrelevant, I'm guessing you have no idea what my degree actually entails and so just like probably many others you are making premature judgments. My degree is very relevant actually and covered many aspects such as information and intelligence management, data analysis, social and legal policy and research as well as environmental law and forensic science. All which are very transferable and ten times better than a 'normal' or 'traditional' degree in English Literature or the like and I genuinely believe that under successful completion of the GDL I would have MORE to offer a firm/chambers than someone with just a normal Law degree who do not have the knowledge and experience of the studies I did in my first degree.

I have also self-funded the Legal Secretarial Diploma with ILSPA and am currently a Litigant Support Volunteer for the PSU at the Newcastle Combined Court so I am taking as many opportunities as I can out of the very few that are available to me where I live. I have also had to complete my degree whilst holding down a family and a household and would argue that all of those students getting top grades in their studies would most likely not have been able to achieve such results had they had to work two jobs or hold down a family at the same time as studying. I still got a very high 2.1 (it was only 3% off a first) considering all of this and did it after 10 years away from education and academia. That is what should be considered when looking for the best candidates, not a letter on a piece of paper.

And of course I wouldn't use the fact that A-Levels were harder back then as a mitigating factor as I know it would carry no weight even though its true. Back when I was studying A-Levels less than 5% of the year group got an A at A-Level to the point where one girl had got As all the way through school, never anything less, and had applied to Oxbridge to become a doctor but did not get in as she didn't get the As she needed. She is a doctor now still though as she eventually attended UCL to do it. These days half of the year groups probably get As at A-Level and I don't believe that we were just a "less clever" generation.

And no I do not expect someone to pay me to "not become a solicitor". I wish to practice law and although I have preferences I would be more than happy with a firm who recognised my abilities and could provide me with the training I need to become as successful as possible...also Clip, if that is your view about legal practice then I'm not sure why you wanted to practice in the first place? To listen to lies and then try and turn them into fees? If that is how you saw the profession why would you want to join it?

Finally, saying I would just forever work for free was rather hyperbolic and of course I appreciate business which is effectively what firms/chambers are. Also, I am very shocked by the QC figures for females on that link you provided nulli tertius and although it might seem as though I am trying to change the impossible by getting the legal profession to change their filtering ways, it is more that I genuinely believe the country deserves a much more representative legal profession than what they have at the moment and that, by filtering the way they do and not taking people's circumstances and personal abilities into account, the legal profession are missing a trick and really not being very thorough at all.

Maybe its true and I will never be able to become a legal practitioner but at least I am trying a lot harder than many people who are lucky enough to have options and opportunities that I don't. At least it proves one thing, it doesn't matter how hard you work, hard work does not necessarily lead to success at all.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 9

AW1983

Have you considered being a solicitor advocate rather than a barrister? To be honest, most of the criminal work will be done by solicitors these days anyway and the legal aid changes are probably going to make being a criminal barrister uneconomical.

Reply 10

elaine77

Hi AW,

Yes I discussed Solicitor Advocates with the University but they gave me very limited information with regards to that and to TC's so it is an area I am currently researching as Advocacy is where my ambitions lie.

I have struggled to find many large firms up here that have any type of focus upon criminal work and so I am looking into that also.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 11

AW1983

Original post by elaine77

Unfortunately I think it's unlikely that you will find a firm specialising in criminal law that would be able to sponsor your GDL and LPC fees. The reason for this is economic; these types of firms don't make enough to sponsor new joiners (partners won't be on six figures either). Criminal law is badly paid and it is only going to get worse with the legal aid changes. It should be a public outrage, but the public likes it when people who work hard to get qualified don't get paid any more than they do. They will only realise the scandal when they're in the dock without a lawyer because their household earns too much.

If you really need sponsorship, then your best bet is to temporarily broaden your horizons and work for a firm that makes a more general personal legal service offering. Irwin Mitchell might be a good option for you as they are a big firm who do criminal law but also do an array of other personal and corporate legal services (e.g. employment law, personal injury etc). They also claim not to be interested in your A-Levels. It might be good for you to broaden your horizons this early in your career as you might find some of these other areas of law interesting.

Reply 12

WouldbeLawyer

I believe Kingsley Napley is the only firm with a strong focus on crime that pays LPC fees. None of them sponsor studying the GDL.

It sucks, but there isn't enough money in crime to make sponsorship worth the firm's while. There are also enough highly motivated people who want to work in crime (or closely related fields) that they will pay their own way, so the firms still have plenty of applicants to choose from despite not paying a penny towards the cost of any courses.

Reply 13

elaine77

Yeh.. I know there are no specifically criminal firms but there are actually many up here that don't offer criminal at all on their websites and so I meant that I have been looking for ones that at least offer it as a field of practice.. I always thought of Irwin Mitchell in a PI capacity and of all the areas of law PI is my worst worst preference wise.... I have been looking at Hay and Kilner too as they seem to have some sort of focus upon criminal work.... I am interested in family law too its just that I don't have a particularly huge interest in corporate or commercial which is where the money is and so is where most firms focus their attention...

Reply 14

FreddieLS

You need to first lose the chip or you would struggle with getting through a pupillage interview anyway. Whilst the bar is traditionally an elite profession, nowadays that is generally changing. Although the chancery bar has to a certain degree retained it. i personally know several people who have come from poor backgrounds who have become barristers. What marks them out from what you have said about yourself is that they worked hard enough/were clever enough to get firsts which makes it considerably easier to be successful in obtaining a pupillage.

Saying my uni is as good as any other, will hold no weight with anyone, because it is simply untrue. Whatever your reason for choosing it, the quality of the students who choose it will be far lower than oxbridge or the top russell group unis. Furthermore if you were at a low standard of university they will be less willing to accept a 2:1. A 2:1 from oxford is just better than a 2:1 from a poly. This isn't elitism, the grade necessary to enter your university will be far lower than top universities and will attract a far lower standard of student. What you needed to have done was get a first, and then if you had wanted to really shine, get a distinction on a top post grad course, which would have accepted you based on your first. I know someone from a very poor background, admittedly without a family, who did this very thing and after his distinction on the BCL found getting pupillage relatively easy.

Also ten years away from academia should make it easier to get a good degree, than it was for a wet behind the ears 18 year old.

Connections are not everything within the legal profession unless they are very good connections and most don't have these. A connection to a particular chambers may help you if you are, by your own merit in the group of excellent possible candidates but this is pretty rare. Virtually everyone who gets an offer gets it on merit, so lose the chip.

Did you apply for Inns of Court scholarships for the GDL? If you did, why weren't you successful? If you didn't why not? The inns actually do a very good job offering scholarships for the most deserving.

Whilst what you have done, PSU etc, is commendable and the right thing to do, almost all applicants will have done something similar. That does not make you stand out unless there is some particular achievement at the PSU that makes it impressive.

Criminal law is all about advocacy. Do you have any experience of this? Why do you think you will be a good advocate?

Contrary to what someone said your degree subject isn't a major issue in itself. The traditional subjects such as history whilst they have some transferable skills such as research etc, or science knowledge for wannabe IP lawyers, seem to be preferred because you get very academically gifted students who do them.

I am a year older than you and your complaints that the A levels were harder back then is just nonsense and the same nonsense that people ten years older than us said. The exams, as i am sure they are now, were easy. Your A level results are only an issue because you haven't proved that you have improved since you got those results by further academic achievement.

Your problem is really quite simple, many people from poor backgrounds have simply done better than you. The bar is extremely competitive, more so than it was 10 or 15 years ago. Chambers don't choose people who can do the job, almost everyone they interview for pupillage could do the job, they pick the very best person they can get for the job. This difficulty has occurred because the profession is not elitist, but has opened up to far more applicants than it ever had before. The question that will be asked is this: Other than having a story where you struggled due to personal circumstances to get a 2:1, what makes you special? Why should they pick you? ..... Do you actually have an answer to this?

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

elaine77

Yes I do actually and I fundamentally disagree with a lot you have just said but most importantly I note you said you know someone "without a family". This immediately makes your point redundant as I already explained that it is my BELIEF that anyone who had to work two jobs whilst doing A-Levels and anyone who had to raise a family and manage a houshold whilst doing an undergraduate degree has less chance of securing top grades/a First Class Honours Degree than others who have their WHOLE TIME to dedicate to their studies. That is just common sense although you might disagree. Only 3 people in my undergrad degree cohort got First Class degrees - all of whom were straight out of school and none of whom had families or jobs and even then they only got a better mark than me by 5-10%.

Secondly, I never said my university was just as good as any other, my point was that the university I attended should not be a dominant factor because there are underlying reasons as to why I had to study at that university and also that I enrolled there as a mature student. Had I been able to relocate who knows which University I may have been able to attend? I did not attend Northumbria just because I wasn't "good enough" for a better university, although that seems to be how it is automatically interpreted!

I also completely disagree that someone who has been out of school for ten years should do better at a degree - when someone has not studied academically/wrote essays/done practical research methods for ten years they are at a distinct disadvantage to someone who has only just finished doing it for 5 years - for example, have you ever seen "Are You Smarter than a 10 year old" ? None of them were.

Furthermore, what practical experience am I supposed to have of advocacy when I am not a law-graduate? Doesn't mean I can't be a pracititoner though. I have researched it, watched it, researched it some more and I did represent someone at a five day Employment Tribunal hearing against a large national company and 5 senior managers despite having no legal training whatsoever. This included building the whole case, bringing the whole case, cross-examination and closing submissions. At least it is something and I was greatly commended by the opposing solicitor who was from a prestigious firm (from a different part of the country) and advised me to definitely pursue a career in law. I have also recently signed up to be part of the Court Observers Panel for Northumbria Police for Rape and Sexual Assualt trials to further gain experience in a criminal capacity.

As for your comments about a "chip" I don't have one I just do not believe people are given a fair chance when their whole ability is based upon letters on a page or what establishment they studied at. There are a lot more to people than school grades and many corporations/businesses/even the police service are starting to recognise this and I believe it is time that the legal profession follow suit.

Also, saying "plenty people from poor backgrounds have done better than you" is completely unfounded. How do you know this? You even admitted yourself you do not even know anyone WITH A FAMILY who has done it so I don't actually believe you are in a position to make those judgments as you know of no one in my exact circumstances.

Another thing, I did not struggle to get my 2.1, I worked damn hard for it and that alone proves I HAVE improved since my A-Levels as they were actually much worse! I also have a CertEd in Education and a Legal Secretarial Diploma as mentioned previously. I could not dedicate 100% of my time to my studies which is why I fell short of a First by 3% and I disagree that the A-Levels were not more difficult a decade ago as the percentage of students gaining A's in them has increased dramatically in the last decade despite the teaching being the same. Even the government have raised concerns over recent years regarding how easy it is now to obtain A-grades in schools.

So, before you accuse me of not working hard enough or not being clever enough to obtain a First, you need to do exactly what the law firms need to do and look at a person's circumstances and what else they can offer as you are completely wrong. If I had the opportunity to lock myself away in a dorm and do nothing but study for both my A-levels and my undergrad degree I can guarantee you I would have gotten a First and top grades whereas if the people who DID have the opportunity to do that all had to do it whilst simultaneously running a household and raising two young children (Who were both aged 5 and under when I commenced the degree) I can pretty much guarantee you they would NOT have got the top grades they did and as for working harder? Doing a degree whilst raising two children of that age is a hell of a lot harder than just the studying! I can only assume that you do not have young children yourself or did not whilst you were completing any studies that you have done - which basically means your views on the issue are wholly unfounded and inaccurate.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 16

FreddieLS

First of all, you need to stop blaming the legal system for your own life choices. Personally, I could have done any number of jobs whilst doing A levels because they were so easy. As for a degree, that may have been harder whilst balancing a family, but having a family was ultimately something you decided on or at the very least accepted. You haven't mentioned the father once, so I am making a presumption that he is not around or was not able to help you bear that burden whilst studying?

You did not answer the question about Inns of Court Scholarships.... Your entire post is about funding but these scholarships can fund you through both GDL and BPTC. I am pretty sure they interview everyone who applies for them. If you entire problem is funding, answer the questions..............

I said advocacy not legal advocacy although your one example is a good one. There are plenty of ways in one's life that one can be required to advocate something or speak publically on a particular subject. You cannot study advocacy by only researching and watching it.

"I attended should not be a dominant factor because there are underlying reasons as to why I had to study at that university and also that I enrolled there as a mature student. Had I been able to relocate who knows which University I may have been able to attend?" - You went to Northumbria? Why not Newcastle? The fact you did not go to the Russell group in the same city as the poly makes any claim at being able to attend a better university than Northumbria rather weak.

"Also, saying "plenty people from poor backgrounds have done better than you" is completely unfounded. How do you know this? You even admitted yourself you do not even know anyone WITH A FAMILY who has done it so I don't actually believe you are in a position to make those judgments as you know of no one in my exact circumstances." - Poor isn't synonymous with parent. I know various state school kids, with parents in poor paid job even some who were unemployed. I met a barrister who had done badly at school become a construction worker and then went back to university got a first and made it to the bar and successfully completed a pupillage.

"when someone has not studied academically/wrote essays/done practical research methods for ten years they are at a distinct disadvantage to someone who has only just finished doing it for 5 years - for example, have you ever seen "Are You Smarter than a 10 year old" ? None of them were" - I have not seen the show, as I don't watch such programs but I know the basic premise. It is a show that works because we are taught various facts at a young age that we never use again and so forget. Basic maths skills are also forgotten by vast swathes of the population, if they ever learnt them in the first place. A degree however is completely different, unlike that program, you have the time to go back and learn the essential facts, what sets students at degree level apart is their ability to critically analyse and evaluate concepts and then structure an answer that demonstrates this. Furthermore, because some students did not get the grounding in essay writing that I was lucky enough to get at school, I remember a lot of advice been given to students on how to research and write essays. Finally, in many degrees the first year does not count, as this is the year they get to learn how to do work to university level. A mature student through their general insights in life and life experience, should be far better at being able to critically analyse information, that a child who has very little experience except for cramming for hoop jumping exams known as A levels.

"Another thing, I did not struggle to get my 2.1, I worked damn hard for it" - I am afraid you just admitted to the very thing you were claiming to not have done. If you had to work damned for something, you struggled for it. As in, you toiled for it.

"you accuse me of not working hard enough or not being clever enough to obtain a First, you need to do exactly what the law firms need to do and look at a person's circumstances and what else they can offer as you are completely wrong" - At the very end I asked this question, I asked you what made you special, other than the fact you "worked damn hard" for your 2:1 balancing a family, and you did not answer me.

"I also have a CertEd in Education and a Legal Secretarial Diploma as mentioned previously" - whilst this is commendable you are going up against people with great academic records and even post graduate degrees, so this is not going to set you out as something special.

"I disagree that the A-Levels were not more difficult a decade ago as the percentage of students gaining A's in them has increased dramatically in the last decade despite the teaching being the same. Even the government have raised concerns over recent years regarding how easy it is now to obtain A-grades in schools" - Even if, and I make no admission of this fact, exams are easier, the A levels in the period you did them were very easy. What subjects did you take for your B, C, C?

"you do not have young children yourself or did not whilst you were completing any studies that you have done" - you are correct I do not, I decided to make a life and get a job prior to starting a family. I disagree with your statement that "your views on the issue are wholly unfounded and inaccurate". If one deals with this statement logically, it means that only people who have raised two young children whilst doing a degree as a mature student because they got poor grades at school could comment. I will admit I am making a presumption here, but I don't think there are that many people who match that exacting standard on this forum. It follows then that if the only people you want to comment on your post are people with the exact same circumstances, your decision to post was rather pointless

Reply 17

FreddieLS

I am not going to get into any more of a debate with you over how hard you think your life has been but to be perfectly frank, if you tried you could get a scholarship from the Inns of Court. You could work your hard knock life story and the determination to get to the bar into interview winning stuff. I know a girl who got a £20,000 or 25,000 scholarship for just the BPTC from middle temple who had virtually nothing to her, middling university, average grades but she gave a good interview. I think City Law School (my law school offered means tested scholarships too but I don't know how large)

If funding is the problem for you at the bar this is the one hope you have, apply for the inns of court scholarships, knock their socks off, show them the passion you have for criminal law, and life and the bar, show them that you have had such a hard time but you have over come adversity and show them that you have what it takes to be a good barrister even though your poor background hindered you and you should be able to get one.

This has two benefits:

1) you will be able to undertake the study without the financial risks, and so you will be able to compete with those more privileged
2) it adds something to your CV if you have them

You ignored this topic when I brought it up which means two things:

1) you did not apply - that is your own fault, and does not show the drive, the desire, frankly the desperation that is necessary to succeed in this highly sought after career choice
2) you did apply but failed - This would mean you suck at interviewing, go practice, and lose the chip, saying I have struggled as I had a hard start in life but you are determined to succeed and this is how I can prove it is good, whining that other people have it easier than, things should be easier for you too you is bad

Reply 18

nulli tertius

Original post by elaine77

Also, I am very shocked by the QC figures for females on that link you provided nulli tertius

I am probably being very hard on you but if you singled out that stat from the report as being the one to be shocked about, I worry about your ability to function as a lawyer.

You should have realised that the QC figure is a reflection of the entrance levels to the profession 20-30 years ago.

I can support this was some figures, but that should have been obvious to you.

Approximately 20% of QCs appointed in recent years are women.

http://www.qcappointments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Ongoing-Stats-from-2003.xls

I have a figure for tenants of 0-4 years' call in 1987/8. 29% of them were female.

The drop out rate for women in private practice has always been higher for reasons that are explicable and very likely permanent. The bar being self-employed have no maternity rights. The bar being self-employed do not have the security of a salary. Child care where working patterns are wholly unpredictable is very expensive (au pairs and nannies). For all of these reasons a significant proportion of women barristers leave and take up salaried employment.

Reply 19

FreddieLS

Original post by nulli tertius

I am probably being very hard on you but if you singled out that stat from the report as being the one to be shocked about, I worry about your ability to function as a lawyer.

That's is a bit strong! More than likely it simply shows some predisposed bias towards feminist causes. I know at least two female pupils who's feminism borders on misandry so I doubt that alone would hinder her chances as a barrister!