username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
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.
1
reply
Quick-use
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
I don't understand the point of this thread. Law is an academic degree and not a vocational one. :confused: You could make the same argument for literally any non vocational degree including Maths, Economics or Philosophy...
0
reply
errrr99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
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.
Last edited by errrr99; 1 week ago
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by Quick-use)
I don't understand the point of this thread. Law is an academic degree and not a vocational one. :confused: 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.
0
reply
black tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
(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)
Yes.
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#6
(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.
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.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
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.
Last edited by The RAR; 1 week ago
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#8
(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"
0
reply
SuperHuman98
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
What would that achieve though? Law is oversaturated? But you can get into the law sector with other degrees
0
reply
MidgetFever
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(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.
Last edited by MidgetFever; 1 week ago
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#11
(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.
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.
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#12
(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.
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.
0
reply
MidgetFever
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(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.
Last edited by MidgetFever; 1 week ago
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(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.
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"
1
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
just ban crap ex-polies from teaching the humanities and social sciences
0
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#16
(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.
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.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
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.
1
reply
username2353215
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#18
(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.
0
reply
errrr99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
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....
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by TSRFT8)
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.
Didn't you have to pass some sort of logical reasoning test before you joined the firm?
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Bristol
    Undergraduate Open Afternoon Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Day - Penryn Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19
  • University of Nottingham
    Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 23 Oct '19

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (149)
60.08%
No I haven't decided yet (56)
22.58%
Yes but I might change my mind (43)
17.34%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed