[Alan Smithee]

After reading the thread about the BVC in this room, I'm concerned.

Why are providers allowed to get away with their ludicrous fees and place allocations, if there is LITTLE HOPE of some people being given a pupillage? Does the BVC qualification aid you in getting other jobs once you have it, or is it pretty much useless?

Are the providers of this course doing enough to warn people about their chances of pupillage?

[wannabelaw]

The cost of the BVC has doubled in 6 years, while the number of pupillages have decreased. It does seem a little odd that the fees increase each year. Can the providers really argue that the BVC is twice as good as 6 years ago?

It is unlikely that the providers really care if some has any chance of gainin pupillage. What does seem strange is that when problems are raised as to the chances of junior doctors getting places in the medical profssion, it is front page news. It seems that the problems faced by would be lawyers is not as imprtant as doctors, when both profession offer a service to the public!

[andy_1989]

I have no idea how BVC providers get away with it, surely when students start the course they must ask numerous questions in relation to where previous students have gone and how many actually gained pupillage.

Whilst lawyers are important to society, you would find people respect and value doctors more so as afterall, they save lives. Therefore I believe thats why the media put so much emphasis upon the difficulty in getting into the medical profession,what would you see yourself panicking over more: the lack of barristers or doctors?

[bleugh]

It's a totally different case though. The taxpayer forks out tens of thousands of pounds to fund one student through medical school, so it is a serious public issue if there are not enough jobs for junior doctors. Nobody gets public funding for the BVC, so it's not really a public issue in the same sense.

I do, however, totally agree with PW. I think that BVC providers cynically make money out of people who have very little chance of ever becoming a barrister, and perhaps the number of places ought to be cut in order to make entry to bar school more competitive. But what incentive do the providers have to do that when they know there is always going to be a steady stream of people ready to fork out £12k to do the course? Also, I'm not sure which criteria they could use as a basis for selection without unfairly discriminating against people who have been to less reputed universities, which is clearly politically incorrect.

It's fairly easy to become a solicitor if you have passed the BVC, and I suppose the public speaking skills you acquire through the course could be useful for other careers too.

[chalks]

I find this all a bit odd.

BVC providers are supplying a service for a cost. The more demand there is for their service, the more they will attempt to satisfy that demand. I don't see that it is for them to attempt to control the numbers of individuals attempting to enter the profession.

Undergrads seeking to become barristers should be under absolutely no illusions as to the competition they face. If you don't like the risk of spending a fortune on the BVC with little guarantee of a pupillage then do something else. If you're not aware of the risks then you're foolish. Its not for the BVC provider to deluge you with warnings before they take your money or to limit the number of places available so as to stop people potentially wasting that money.

[Posh Portia Kabine]

I agree with chalks - it's not as if we all think that getting a pupillage is easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy! These people are fully aware of the risks involved. When it boils down to it: it's a gamble (if you haven't already secured a pupillage). No one is holding the metaphoric gun to their head, they are doing so willingly. Quite frankly, if you are going to be as naive and/or arrogant to assume that you're going to get a pupillage just because you're on the BVC... It's like anything really: you could argue about the morality of universities - are they providing someone with a degree that will guarantee them a job as a graduate? Of course not.

[Alan Smithee]

But the original intention of a university was not, and I still believe is not, to create a workforce, it's to educate.

[Posh Portia Kabine]

Hmmmm, I disagree - there's plenty of "vocational" degrees. Plus, the whole student loan debt is based around repaying once you have a significant income to do so. Therefore, there is an assumption that once you leave university you will be able to pay it back on a graduates' salary.

[Alan Smithee]

(Original post by Visiting_Babylon)
Hmmmm, I disagree - there's plenty of "vocational" degrees. Plus, the whole student loan debt is based around repaying once you have a significant income to do so. Therefore, there is an assumption that once you leave university you will be able to pay it back on a graduates' salary.

Ahhh whatever. I can't be arsed to argue with you about it. The thread's here for discussion, so discuss away...I'm stepping out.

[Posh Portia Kabine]

(Original post by Pernell Whitaker)
Ahhh whatever. I can't be arsed to argue with you about it. The thread's here for discussion, so discuss away...I'm stepping out.

Helpful. As always!

[Alan Smithee]

(Original post by Visiting_Babylon)
Helpful. As always!

I wasn't aware that I needed to be.

Who are you anyway? I swear people on this forum take the site personal.

[chalks]

(Original post by Pernell Whitaker)
But the original intention of a university was not, and I still believe is not, to create a workforce, it's to educate.

I couldn't agree more.

But vocational course suppliers (i.e. the College of Law and BVC providers) are there to supply a vocational course to those who want to take it and are prepared to pay for it. They shouldn't be compared to undergrad courses offered by universities.

As for Universities who offer law courses, any argument about them offering too many places compared to available jobs fails for the very reason you mention - universities offer an academic course irrespective of the career opportunities that may entail.

[Posh Portia Kabine]

(Original post by Pernell Whitaker)
I wasn't aware that I needed to be.

Who are you anyway? I swear people on this forum take the site personal.

Who am I - what sort of question is that?! Are we acquainted?!

[shady lane]

The reason I agree with PW is that the BVC is professional only--it has no academic value (that is, you can't get onto a PhD or some other higher law course with it). An LLB is an academic degree recognized by everyone: a bachelor's. It doesn't matter if there are more LLBs than training contracts or pupillages because that's not its purpose. If it was, the LPC/BVC wouldn't exist.

So yes, I think it's ethically questionable for so many providers to offer the BVC, when their intention is not really to provide necessary schooling for future barristers, but just to get money from the thousands of people who think they have a chance (but really don't).

Just wondering: is there a reason that the LPC/BVC are dominated by the private sector, rather than being based in proper universities?

[bleugh]

I do totally agree that BVC providers can do what they want. I just get the impression that certain of them have a kind of 'bums on seats' attitude to education, and they don't really care if they are building people's expectations by giving them a place. They also keep putting the prices for the courses up with no apparent improvement in quality. The most expensive now cost nearly £13k, which is clearly damaging from an access point of view. Obviously there are scholarships from the Inns, but my own experience suggests that it's quite rare for anybody to get one which will fully fund them through the BVC year.

[Simon Myerson QC]

BVC provision is a problem. They were created to broaden the choice from one provider - the ICSL. That was desirable because local authorities had stopped giving grants for Bar School (you will all be too young to remember what grants were, but once upon a time in a golden land called 60s-90s Britain the government paid for you to be educated) and the cost of living in London was enormous. Also, in the late 80s - 90s, the good times were there for the Bar and people believed that they would last for ever.

Now we produce about 3,000 people pa with the vocational qualification. Of those, all but the 500 odd who get pupillage (employed and independent) have nothing of value save what they actually learned. And it costs a fortune (the ICSL cost me £6,000 in 1985 - I remember the pain of handing over the cheque).

There is an ethical debate about when we should shut the door on being a barrister. At present that is the final stage - i.e. everyone can compete for pupillage. Were we to move it back and make entry to the BVC the sifting point then a number of consequences would seem to flow. Firstly, some BVC providers would close, because the economies of scale would not permit them to carry on. Secondly, we would have to decide what criteria would apply. It seems to me unlikely that Chambers would wish to chose pupils 3 years before they arrived - if only because the decision to offer pupillage is usually taken at the last minute and because there's many a slip. Yet 3 years would probably be required so that pupillage could be offered in the second year and the BVC place obtained in the 3rd year.

It is also probably the case that costs would not go down - indeed might even go up because the course would have to be delievered to fewer people. Then we would have to deal with the question of how many people got to go on the BVC course - you couldn't really confine it to those who only had pupillage because they may drop out and leave the Chambers without a pupil they wanted. And Chambers' needs can change over 3 years, particularly if a mid-ranking junior really takes off and has returns coming out of their ears. And what about the people who want the qualification to go to a different country and practice there? Do we only let them in if they promise to go? What if the country they wish to go to doesn't chose its pupils for another 2 years?

And, finally, what of all the people who would say ' I would be a brilliant barrister but my academic performance isn't my strongest point'? How else are we to judge entry to the BVC/the obtaining of pupillage if the entire exercise is taking place in the 2nd year? Normally mini-pupillages are undertaken when the student knows some law. If the BVC is pupillage dependent and the exercise is being conducted in the 2nd year then how many informed mini-pupillages will be done? And if we chose some other criteria to limit entry to the BVC that can only be academic.

On the other hand I am afraid that my experience shows that too many people who have no realistic chance of obtaining pupillage believe the contrary. To some extent they are grown-ups and must bear the consequences of their own decisions. However, when I see a candidate with a 2.2 from a not terribly distinguished university, who went to a decent school (and thus cannot rely on any argument based on differential), has done nothing special either of an extra-curricular nature or within their degree (for example a first in a dissertation on remedies and a letter saying they can produce really good work but can't handle all the subjects to the same standard within a tight timetable), and who produces an Olpas form that looks like 300 other peoples' Olpas form - I think that person has wasted time, money and effort and should have been disillusioned early.

In reality my favoured system is a barrister sift, where a panel of about 5 people spends 1/2 day with a group of potential applicants and then either says yes or no (the coercive option) or gives advice (the gentle option). And in these days where no profession is allowed to regulate itself that is about as likely as Satan being elected God.

So once again, because we refuse to trust anybody, we don't believe in feel and we attribute every decision which goes against us to a sinister conspiracy or the 'old boys' network', we allow blunt tools like exam results to dictate the lives of thousands of people, or we leave it to the market and allow the suppliers to grow rich on a course which only 20% of their consumers will benefit from. Good hey?

I have posted this on the blog as well http://pupillageandhowtogetit.blogspot.com/ and I would welcome comment. This is one of the things that genuinely makes me angry.

[Posh Portia Kabine]

What baffles me is, why are there so many people convinced they'll get a pupillage, when it is so well-known that they are notoriously difficult to obtain? Is it really just because they're on the BVC?

[Tory_boy]

I always think of it as high-risk course to take but it really impresses me when I find out that someone on my course has decided that they want to pursue the barrister route. I think its gutsy. I never doubt that they haven't considered that its notoriously difficult to obtain. I think it speaks volumes about them that they are going to try anyway. Lots of good potential barristers either float the idea for a while to sound important or say that they aren't really sure whether they don't want to take the solicitor route instead. Someone who decides early on in their Law degree and maintain their ambition throughout it is more deserving of the potential benefits it brings.
So, IMO, convincing your self that you can achieve it is part of the battle. Unless, of course, they are being reckless about their ambitions. Either way, its entirely up to them to decide.

[Lady Narcissus]

(Original post by Visiting_Babylon)
What baffles me is, why are there so many people convinced they'll get a pupillage, when it is so well-known that they are notoriously difficult to obtain? Is it really just because they're on the BVC?

A bit like Pop Idol but more expensive with less ritual public humiliation.

I have a friend who is in her early forties who used it to become quiet a successful litigation advisor for Clifford Chance on failing to obtain pupillage but most barristers have told me that it has little worth outside the narrow parameters of the bar.

[Alan Smithee]

There's no limit to how often you can apply for pupillage is there?