Go to first unread
Back
to top
Being a judge without going to private school?
Watch
Announcements
So I would like to be a barrister when I am older and then hopefully judge. I know that this will require hard work. However, I have been told most judges went to private school (which I did not). Is this true or do I stand a chance, irrespective of background?
PS - I'm not doing it for the money, I've always been passionate about the law. Also, I've been told barristers get paid very little at the start of their career.
PS - I'm not doing it for the money, I've always been passionate about the law. Also, I've been told barristers get paid very little at the start of their career.
0
reply
Report
#2
Short answer: by the time you get to that point in your career, where you went to school will be totally irrelevant. I suspect that a disproportionate number of current judges were privately educated, but that is more a reflection of the state of recruitment at the bar 25-30 years ago than any sort of positive requirement.
3
reply
(Original post by legalhelp)
Short answer: by the time you get to that point in your career, where you went to school will be totally irrelevant. I suspect that a disproportionate number of current judges were privately educated, but that is more a reflection of the state of recruitment at the bar 25-30 years ago than any sort of positive requirement.
Short answer: by the time you get to that point in your career, where you went to school will be totally irrelevant. I suspect that a disproportionate number of current judges were privately educated, but that is more a reflection of the state of recruitment at the bar 25-30 years ago than any sort of positive requirement.
0
reply
Report
#4
I don’t think it matters at all. If being a judge is what you’re sure you eventually want to do, then I don’t see your education background being of any importance. Nobody cares where you studied your GCSEs or A levels at that point. If they do consider your high school education, they may look at your school to see how well you did in comparison to the average of your cohort. Your university grade may have some relevance but I doubt they’ll place any importance on it.
If you’re at that point in your career where you’re applying to be a judge, what’s far more important than anything else (I’d assume) is your experience while practicing.
If you’re at that point in your career where you’re applying to be a judge, what’s far more important than anything else (I’d assume) is your experience while practicing.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
So I would like to be a barrister when I am older and then hopefully judge. I know that this will require hard work. However, I have been told most judges went to private school (which I did not). Is this true or do I stand a chance, irrespective of background?
PS - I'm not doing it for the money, I've always been passionate about the law. Also, I've been told barristers get paid very little at the start of their career.
So I would like to be a barrister when I am older and then hopefully judge. I know that this will require hard work. However, I have been told most judges went to private school (which I did not). Is this true or do I stand a chance, irrespective of background?
PS - I'm not doing it for the money, I've always been passionate about the law. Also, I've been told barristers get paid very little at the start of their career.
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
So are modern times more hopeful with more opportunities?
So are modern times more hopeful with more opportunities?
Last edited by legalhelp; 1 month ago
2
reply
(Original post by Oxford Mum)
Could I please ask for your GCSE stats?
Could I please ask for your GCSE stats?
0
reply
Report
#9
What is it about the law that you admire and what drawbacks are there to the legal system?
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
You mean my GCSE grades? Why?
You mean my GCSE grades? Why?
Not sure what stage you are with your application either
0
reply
(Original post by Oxford Mum)
Just seeing if I can help, that's all
Not sure what stage you are with your application either
Just seeing if I can help, that's all
Not sure what stage you are with your application either
GCSE English Language (8)
GCSE English Literature (7)
GCSE Mathematics (5) - I am currently in the process of re-sitting this
GCSE Science Combined (5-5)
GCSE Food Nutrition (6)
GCSE Geography (6)
BTEC Drama (6)
Maths and Science grades are weak, I know
0
reply
(Original post by xandra_sky)
What is it about the law that you admire and what drawbacks are there to the legal system?
What is it about the law that you admire and what drawbacks are there to the legal system?
Last edited by username5475760; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
Firstly, I admire the purpose of law - it is designed to keep society together and ensure justice is served (of course, this isn't always the case - for people can escape justice or be given the wrong sentence). I have always advocated that we need to be tougher on criminal law to fully ensure law and order. It is clear from my point of view that our legal system has several drawbacks. Firstly, the people who make our laws tend to come from privileged backgrounds. I consider this to be a very strong drawback because the law is rife with elitism. I know times are changing, but to be honest I do not feel as though they are changing fast enough. If so, then why are all supreme court judges privately educated. How can we be expected to follow law (a system designed to promote equal opportunities and preserve rights) when the law itself allows inequality. It is undermined by its own parallels. Furthermore, justice is not something that happens all the time, and people have in the past received sentences that I feel is rather disproportionate in the context of the the crime they committed. If our legal system is to adopt equality, true justice can only be achieved via simple mathematics. What I mean is that the punishment allocated to a criminal must be directly proportional to the crime they have committed. For instance, there is no point ordering someone to have psychiatric therapy at a hospital if they simply took a plea of insanity to get a reduced sentence. If one has truly committed an act of murder (with genuine malice) they should truly be admitted to prison permanently (no questions asked). Hope that helps.
Firstly, I admire the purpose of law - it is designed to keep society together and ensure justice is served (of course, this isn't always the case - for people can escape justice or be given the wrong sentence). I have always advocated that we need to be tougher on criminal law to fully ensure law and order. It is clear from my point of view that our legal system has several drawbacks. Firstly, the people who make our laws tend to come from privileged backgrounds. I consider this to be a very strong drawback because the law is rife with elitism. I know times are changing, but to be honest I do not feel as though they are changing fast enough. If so, then why are all supreme court judges privately educated. How can we be expected to follow law (a system designed to promote equal opportunities and preserve rights) when the law itself allows inequality. It is undermined by its own parallels. Furthermore, justice is not something that happens all the time, and people have in the past received sentences that I feel is rather disproportionate in the context of the the crime they committed. If our legal system is to adopt equality, true justice can only be achieved via simple mathematics. What I mean is that the punishment allocated to a criminal must be directly proportional to the crime they have committed. For instance, there is no point ordering someone to have psychiatric therapy at a hospital if they simply took a plea of insanity to get a reduced sentence. If one has truly committed an act of murder (with genuine malice) they should truly be admitted to prison permanently (no questions asked). Hope that helps.
Last edited by legalhelp; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
Firstly, I admire the purpose of law - it is designed to keep society together and ensure justice is served (of course, this isn't always the case - for people can escape justice or be given the wrong sentence). I have always advocated that we need to be tougher on criminal law to fully ensure law and order. It is clear from my point of view that our legal system has several drawbacks. Firstly, the people who make our laws tend to come from privileged backgrounds. I consider this to be a very strong drawback because the law is rife with elitism. I know times are changing, but to be honest I do not feel as though they are changing fast enough. If so, then why are all supreme court judges privately educated. How can we be expected to follow law (a system designed to promote equal opportunities and preserve rights) when the law itself allows inequality. It is undermined by its own parallels. Furthermore, justice is not something that happens all the time, and people have in the past received sentences that I feel is rather disproportionate in the context of the the crime they committed. If our legal system is to adopt equality, true justice can only be achieved via simple mathematics. What I mean is that the punishment allocated to a criminal must be directly proportional to the crime they have committed. For instance, there is no point ordering someone to have psychiatric therapy at a hospital if they simply took a plea of insanity to get a reduced sentence. If one has truly committed an act of murder (with genuine malice) they should truly be admitted to prison permanently (no questions asked). Hope that helps.
Firstly, I admire the purpose of law - it is designed to keep society together and ensure justice is served (of course, this isn't always the case - for people can escape justice or be given the wrong sentence). I have always advocated that we need to be tougher on criminal law to fully ensure law and order. It is clear from my point of view that our legal system has several drawbacks. Firstly, the people who make our laws tend to come from privileged backgrounds. I consider this to be a very strong drawback because the law is rife with elitism. I know times are changing, but to be honest I do not feel as though they are changing fast enough. If so, then why are all supreme court judges privately educated. How can we be expected to follow law (a system designed to promote equal opportunities and preserve rights) when the law itself allows inequality. It is undermined by its own parallels. Furthermore, justice is not something that happens all the time, and people have in the past received sentences that I feel is rather disproportionate in the context of the the crime they committed. If our legal system is to adopt equality, true justice can only be achieved via simple mathematics. What I mean is that the punishment allocated to a criminal must be directly proportional to the crime they have committed. For instance, there is no point ordering someone to have psychiatric therapy at a hospital if they simply took a plea of insanity to get a reduced sentence. If one has truly committed an act of murder (with genuine malice) they should truly be admitted to prison permanently (no questions asked). Hope that helps.
0
reply
Report
#15
Oh, and 2 current SC justices went to state school, as did Baroness Hale (who retired last year). Obviously not great still, but they weren’t all privately educated. Plus, these are the people who started at the bar 40-50 years ago. Not necessarily a a reflection of where we will be in 40-50 years’ time.
Last edited by legalhelp; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by xandra_sky)
I think people get 25 years now for murder and that may be reduced on "good behaviour." It's quite an overhaul of the law to sentence someone to permanent life in prison for murder, I'm not saying I agree with the current system, but I don't see it changing...usually people who think like you have quite right wing views as well
I think people get 25 years now for murder and that may be reduced on "good behaviour." It's quite an overhaul of the law to sentence someone to permanent life in prison for murder, I'm not saying I agree with the current system, but I don't see it changing...usually people who think like you have quite right wing views as well
Last edited by legalhelp; 1 month ago
1
reply
(Original post by xandra_sky)
I think people get 25 years now for murder and that may be reduced on "good behaviour." It's quite an overhaul of the law to sentence someone to permanent life in prison for murder, I'm not saying I agree with the current system, but I don't see it changing...usually people who think like you have quite right wing views as well
I think people get 25 years now for murder and that may be reduced on "good behaviour." It's quite an overhaul of the law to sentence someone to permanent life in prison for murder, I'm not saying I agree with the current system, but I don't see it changing...usually people who think like you have quite right wing views as well
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Joel Hodgson)
Well yes you are right in the 25 years (I apologise if my views come across as strong - but it is something I am passionate about). I also don't think that things are going to change but it does annoy me when I read about cases in the news of people who escape justice by being given the wrong sentence. Maybe I am just a bit odd but I suppose it's better to be passionate about something than to have a complete disregard for a system which affects the whole of society
Well yes you are right in the 25 years (I apologise if my views come across as strong - but it is something I am passionate about). I also don't think that things are going to change but it does annoy me when I read about cases in the news of people who escape justice by being given the wrong sentence. Maybe I am just a bit odd but I suppose it's better to be passionate about something than to have a complete disregard for a system which affects the whole of society
0
reply
(Original post by legalhelp)
See my post above - the comment about 25 years is not right. And I’m not sure what you really mean by “the wrong sentence”?
See my post above - the comment about 25 years is not right. And I’m not sure what you really mean by “the wrong sentence”?
0
reply
Report
#20
I think the most important thing about getting into law is going to oxbridge or another top uni.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
