Should Law Degrees be Regulated?
In the same way as degrees in Medicine and Dentistry are only allowed to be run at set institutions and a set quota of individuals able to gain a place.
Law, previously was a hugely respected degree to gain, however, more recently it seems it has become available to anyone providing they merely pass their A-levels (some universities are accepted CDD).
So the question arises; should we therefore, stop many of the institutions from being able to provide a law degree as a simple cash grab? The legal sector is already over-saturated, is there any need for bottom tier universities to be churning out c500 more students a year who have absolute no chance of obtaining training contracts and are over-populating an already crowded job market.
Should a Law degree revert back to only being able to be offered by the elite universities (for the sake of argument lets refer to this "group" as the Russel Group and the 1994 group) or should we be allowing universities who are in some ways manipulating students into their institutions just to garner an extra £9,250 from each student and cramming in 500 students into a lecture hall for the sake of profit?
I have to have a general debate; NOT a discussion about lets bash X Y or Z university.
Law, previously was a hugely respected degree to gain, however, more recently it seems it has become available to anyone providing they merely pass their A-levels (some universities are accepted CDD).
So the question arises; should we therefore, stop many of the institutions from being able to provide a law degree as a simple cash grab? The legal sector is already over-saturated, is there any need for bottom tier universities to be churning out c500 more students a year who have absolute no chance of obtaining training contracts and are over-populating an already crowded job market.
Should a Law degree revert back to only being able to be offered by the elite universities (for the sake of argument lets refer to this "group" as the Russel Group and the 1994 group) or should we be allowing universities who are in some ways manipulating students into their institutions just to garner an extra £9,250 from each student and cramming in 500 students into a lecture hall for the sake of profit?
I have to have a general debate; NOT a discussion about lets bash X Y or Z university.
Scroll to see replies
The regulator has just introduced a super-exam so that there will be no requirement to have a law degree before becoming a solicitor. (I am unsure whether this applies to barristers).
Therefore this debate is a little bit too late!
But in case you want to debate anyway, I think a law degree should not be denied to people who have a genuine interest and curiosity about the law and the willingness to dedicate time and money into studying it. What's so special about studying law as opposed to physics or chemistry anyway? If you're interested in it, why should you be prevented from studying it by an arbitrary cap on numbers? There is a very good reason to cap medical/dental numbers - they train in real working hospitals not in a classroom. You cannot swamp a general hospital with students. It would be a menace. The law degree does not guarantee training. Same as any other 3 year bachelor's degree.
Therefore this debate is a little bit too late!
But in case you want to debate anyway, I think a law degree should not be denied to people who have a genuine interest and curiosity about the law and the willingness to dedicate time and money into studying it. What's so special about studying law as opposed to physics or chemistry anyway? If you're interested in it, why should you be prevented from studying it by an arbitrary cap on numbers? There is a very good reason to cap medical/dental numbers - they train in real working hospitals not in a classroom. You cannot swamp a general hospital with students. It would be a menace. The law degree does not guarantee training. Same as any other 3 year bachelor's degree.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Quick-use
I don't understand the point of this thread. Law is an academic degree and not a vocational one. 
You could make the same argument for literally any non vocational degree including Maths, Economics or Philosophy...
You could make the same argument for literally any non vocational degree including Maths, Economics or Philosophy...The issue is with the degrees you have listed the general quota at universities is smaller and not every university offers those degrees. In addition, the job market for said courses is no where near as saturated.
With Economics, banks have already to some extent given their views of attending "non-target" universities. The simple fact is the legal market is hugely over-crowded and there needs to be a change.
Original post by TSRFT8
Should a Law degree revert back to only being able to be offered by the elite universities (for the sake of argument lets refer to this "group" as the Russel Group and the 1994 group)
Should a Law degree revert back to only being able to be offered by the elite universities (for the sake of argument lets refer to this "group" as the Russel Group and the 1994 group)
Yes.
Original post by errrr99
The regulator has just introduced a super-exam so that there will be no requirement to have a law degree before becoming a solicitor. (I am unsure whether this applies to barristers).
Therefore this debate is a little bit too late!
But in case you want to debate anyway, I think a law degree should not be denied to people who have a genuine interest and curiosity about the law and the willingness to dedicate time and money into studying it. What's so special about studying law as opposed to physics or chemistry anyway? If you're interested in it, why should you be prevented from studying it by an arbitrary cap on numbers? There is a very good reason to cap medical/dental numbers - they train in real working hospitals not in a classroom. You cannot swamp a general hospital with students. It would be a menace. The degree does not guarantee training. Same as any other 3 year bachelor's degree.
Therefore this debate is a little bit too late!
But in case you want to debate anyway, I think a law degree should not be denied to people who have a genuine interest and curiosity about the law and the willingness to dedicate time and money into studying it. What's so special about studying law as opposed to physics or chemistry anyway? If you're interested in it, why should you be prevented from studying it by an arbitrary cap on numbers? There is a very good reason to cap medical/dental numbers - they train in real working hospitals not in a classroom. You cannot swamp a general hospital with students. It would be a menace. The degree does not guarantee training. Same as any other 3 year bachelor's degree.
1) This was almost always the case. You never needed a law degree to become a solicitor or barrister. They have simply changed the format.
2) I get that; however, I also have a strong belief in universities manipulating young students and giving them false assumptions about how they will be able to get them Training contracts with their "employability rates". I recently looked at a university law prospect and I wont name the university but it mentioned how its law graduates are "high sought after by leading firms." Having a high number of connections and just general snooping for the past 2 years I have yet to encounter a single one of their "sought after graduates" at even regional firms let alone the Magic Circle.
Not to sound like a prick or anything but I am getting this strong feeling that you study Law, are struggling or at least finding it hard to get a training contract so you made this thread as a result.
Answering your actual post, Medicine is a very serious and vocational degree hence it is regulated. Law it does not matter if you make mistakes here and there and it is just a degree like any other so I don't see them being regulated anytime soon. I do however agree too many people are doing Law and the numbers just keep increasing.
Answering your actual post, Medicine is a very serious and vocational degree hence it is regulated. Law it does not matter if you make mistakes here and there and it is just a degree like any other so I don't see them being regulated anytime soon. I do however agree too many people are doing Law and the numbers just keep increasing.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by black tea
Yes.
I am glad you agree. I am tired of universities selling absolute garbage to students who are 17/18. Yes, students should research but you can hardly blame a 17 year old for not requesting FOI requests for each university claiming to be a "top class law school"
What would that achieve though? Law is oversaturated? But you can get into the law sector with other degrees
Original post by TSRFT8
1) This was almost always the case. You never needed a law degree to become a solicitor or barrister. They have simply changed the format.
You didn't, but you'd still have to do a GDL/conversion course, I think is what their point was. When the SQE comes into place, a conversion course is no longer needed.
So regulating Law degrees would be quite pointless.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by The RAR
Not to sound like a prick or anything but I am getting this strong feeling that you study Law, are struggling or at least finding it hard to get a training contract so you made this thread as a result.
Answering your actual post, Medicine is a very serious and vocational degree hence it is regulated. Law it does not matter if you make mistakes here and there and it is just a degree like any other so I don't see them being regulated anytime soon. I do agree too many people are doing Law and the numbers just keep increasing.
Answering your actual post, Medicine is a very serious and vocational degree hence it is regulated. Law it does not matter if you make mistakes here and there and it is just a degree like any other so I don't see them being regulated anytime soon. I do agree too many people are doing Law and the numbers just keep increasing.
I have a training contract at a MC firm.
However, my motivation for this thread was actually caused by my involvement in mentoring students through my university who are applying to university this year. Most of them are clueless as to where they should go and what advantage it would put them in. In addition, being involved in trying to help graduates I have also seen the other side of individuals who have been graduated for over 2/3 years plugging their trades as paralegals with no training contract in sight simply due to their application being rejected for nothing more than their university name.
Original post by MidgetFever
You didn't, but you'd still have to do a GDL/conversion course, I think is what their point was. When the SQE comes into place, a conversion course is no longer needed.
So regulating Law degrees would be quite pointless.
So regulating Law degrees would be quite pointless.
By implementing the SQE does not solve the issue of a over-saturated job market, I would argue that in-fact it will make it far worse.
Original post by TSRFT8
By implementing the SQE does not solve the issue of a over-saturated job market, I would argue that in-fact it will make it far worse.
Exactly, so how would regulating law degrees make any difference?
If they restricted access to law degrees to only the elite again, people would just choose a different degree and take the SQE afterwards.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by TSRFT8
I have a training contract at a MC firm.
However, my motivation for this thread was actually caused by my involvement in mentoring students through my university who are applying to university this year. Most of them are clueless as to where they should go and what advantage it would put them in. In addition, being involved in trying to help graduates I have also seen the other side of individuals who have been graduated for over 2/3 years plugging their trades as paralegals with no training contract in sight simply due to their application being rejected for nothing more than their university name.
However, my motivation for this thread was actually caused by my involvement in mentoring students through my university who are applying to university this year. Most of them are clueless as to where they should go and what advantage it would put them in. In addition, being involved in trying to help graduates I have also seen the other side of individuals who have been graduated for over 2/3 years plugging their trades as paralegals with no training contract in sight simply due to their application being rejected for nothing more than their university name.
I agree with everything you are saying, personally if someone says to me they want to study law, I am like "Unless it's a top 10 uni, don't bother it's hella competitive the legal sector these days and you are better off doing a degree in Drama or something which you will likely enjoy more than law"
Original post by MidgetFever
Exactly, so how would regulating law degrees make any difference?
If they restricted access to law degrees to only the elite again, people would just choose a different degree and take the SQE afterwards.
If they restricted access to law degrees to only the elite again, people would just choose a different degree and take the SQE afterwards.
No is saying to offer it to only the upper class.
When I talk about regulation I talk about it from the top down. If you limit law degrees you would also look at regulating aspects of the SQE.
Cant see the point of this thread, just seems like another attempt at elitism.
When you normally see these sport of threads it just amounts to snobbery by the OP who happens to be in the favoured group.
The Law society already regulates degrees.
Professional exams regulate degrees.
The market regulates degrees.
When you normally see these sport of threads it just amounts to snobbery by the OP who happens to be in the favoured group.
The Law society already regulates degrees.
Professional exams regulate degrees.
The market regulates degrees.
Original post by The RAR
I agree with everything you are saying, personally if someone says to me they want to study law, I am like "Unless it's a top 10 uni, don't bother it's hella competitive the legal sector these days and you are better off doing a degree in Drama or something which you will likely enjoy more than law"
I am glad you have not taken it in the wrong way. Having spent my summer working with Brightside, I am shell-shocked as to how many more universities have started offering the law degree, it is an awful situation to be in for students who work their socks off for 3 years after being mis-informed during the UCAS stage only to receive PFOs left right and centre simply due to the name of their university.
Putting it into context, I have met a large proportion of trainees at my firm and I have yet to encounter a single one from a Non-Russel group university, that said, the one I have come across is from a 1994 group.
So in mentoring these students, you suspect that many of them have been manipulated to feel entitled to push paper and get paid for it without producing anything of value at their bosses' or the taxpayer's expense?
Potential law graduates should be made aware that they will not be getting their hands dirty, or making anything, or risking any capital, by working for any city or regional boss who accumulated all the clients on their behalf.
How naive are these law students? Perhaps this is evolution's way....
Potential law graduates should be made aware that they will not be getting their hands dirty, or making anything, or risking any capital, by working for any city or regional boss who accumulated all the clients on their behalf.
How naive are these law students? Perhaps this is evolution's way....
Yeah the Watson Glaser test. But if I am correct, you need to actually pass the application stage to get offered the test. I am unsure if this is offered to every applicant or whether they sift through applications and only offer it to the ones with a slight chance of success.
Original post by TSRFT8
No is saying to offer it to only the upper class.
When I talk about regulation I talk about it from the top down. If you limit law degrees you would also look at regulating aspects of the SQE.
When I talk about regulation I talk about it from the top down. If you limit law degrees you would also look at regulating aspects of the SQE.
The upper class? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this but what does class have to do with it at all?
I understand that but if you can take the SQE with any degree, what is the point at targeting law degrees specifically? The logic still makes no sense. If they kept it open to all degree disciplines then you'd have to regulate all degrees by that logic. If you limit the SQE to only law grads again then you're going against their whole aim of making legal careers "less exclusive".
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What can I do with these A levels?
- Law degree
- Alison online course
- Failed a core law module during second year, help.
- GDL before or after LLM / MA?
- Solicitor? Lawyer? LLB?
- MA in Law vs LLB
- Other career prospects apart from pharmacist.
- real estate
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay?
- Help me choose my degree
- Changing degrees (uni of Leicester)
- Law with business employability?
- What can you use in your personal statement?
- epq ideas for law and politics?
- How to be a lawyer in Australia!!! UK degree or Aus degree?!
- Failing
- Please guide me through my dilemma regarding university and courses
- University of London module transfer
- How to train to be a solicitor after doing non-law degree
