Do law firms indirectly discriminate against universities by having A-level cut-offs?

But you can have excellent grades and still go to a "low ranking" university... I think that's what they are trying to say.

But in reality it is still barring a large pool of universities by default. It is implicit that the number of students with AAB for a course which requires BBC will be very low.

To be honest, my issue is when it is applied too rigidly and those who got their a-levels a few years earlier than most applicants are made to suffer.

How does getting your A-levels earlier disadvantage you? Unless you think there's been rampant grade inflation?

The boundaries aren't there to screw over grads from lower unis; they are there because the firms have decided that is a level of attainment they want their trainees to have.

Arguably, they don't think grads with lower grade are 'clever' enough.

Nonetheless, this is the effect that they have in practice - regardless of any supposed intention.



I don't think A-levels measure cleverness in all cases. Is a graduate with AAB at A-level and a 2:1 distinctly more 'clever' than one with BBC at A-level and a first class degree?

I don't have a problem with A-level cut-offs for training contracts and vacation schemes, as law firms need some way of filtering through the vast number of applicants they receive.

However, it annoys me when a law firm has quite a high A-level cut-off but then tries to give the impression that the university you attend does not matter. It seems like an attempt to portray the firm as non-elitist (which I guess ties in with a modern and forward-thinking brand) and to imply that it accepts applicants from universities which are 'non-traditional' or filled with more students from working class and non-privately educated backgrounds.

Yet, by having a high A-level cut-off, the law firm is barring a massive pool of universities where students will have less than what the law firm is asking for by virtue of the university's general entry requirements. Granted, there will be a small number of exceptions (a student who has the required grades despite being at a university which asks for less), but the vast majority will be unlikely to exceed the course entry requirements. Think about how many universities are barred by having an AAB A-level cut-off, for example.

So, fine - have a high A-level cut-off but I wish that some law firms wouldn't be disingenuous by giving off the impression that students outside 'top' universities are also welcome.

I'm confused by this.

Firms have an A-level cut-off (whether AAB or otherwise). That might seem arbitrary, or an unfair way of assessing ability, but the reality is that it's a simple method of undertaking the initial cull of applicants.

Firms do not have an automatic university filter. They might prefer certain institutions, but they don't reject applications from particular universities out of hand.

So, if you're a BBB applicant from Manchester or from Leeds Met your application will be treated in the same way i.e. it's likely to go in the bin. The Leeds Met applicant hasn't been rejected because of their university, but because of their A-levels. That isn't disingenuous, unfair or discriminatory. Firms do accept applications from "non-traditional" universities but provided you meet the level playing field filter of A-level results.

An AAA applicant attending Leeds Met might well make it through the initial cull. They might subsequently be rejected because that institution isn't well-regarded compared to other universities. Again, that isn't unfair.

I'm not sure I understand what your issue is? If you don't get the requisite grades, you won't make the cut.

They're getting loads more applications from quality people than they can handle already. They have to draw a line on some grounds, and it might as well be A-levels.

Sure, technically, anyone from any university can apply provided they meet the grades; however, these people will be tiny exceptions so realistically and in practice, a number of universities are barred by having high A-level cut-offs.

If a course requires BCC, for example, how many people are realistically going to have AAB? It is going to be very minimal, if not zero.

Nonetheless, this is the effect that they have in practice - regardless of any supposed intention.



I don't think A-levels measure cleverness in all cases. Is a graduate with AAB at A-level and a 2:1 distinctly more 'clever' than one with BBC at A-level and a first class degree?

Let's imagine an analagous situation (albeit a totally facetious one).

It is a requirement to secure a training contract that you have an ability to communicate clearly and concisely in written and spoken English. Dundee University offers an LLB course which satisfies Law Society requirements. However, City firms have formed the view that the Scottish students at that Uni all speak in impenetrable accents and will, therefore, be rejected when applying for TCs.

Are the firms "discriminating" against Dundee University? No, they're rejecting Scottish students from that University because of their inability to satisfy a pre-determined criteria. A well-spoken Englishman from Dundee Uni wouldn't have the same problems.