Or, alternatively, the thread could have been entitled "No room at the Inn".
This article in The Lawyer reports that the Law Society is going to start a campaign warning prospective students of the perils of trying to enter the profession given the fact that there are far more applicants than available training contracts (7000 to 6000). This comes at the same time as the BSB may have to drop its proposed aptitude test for the BVC as the OFT regards it as potentially anti-competitive.
Would such warnings from the Law Soc have made any difference to your decision to go for law? Or is the competitiveness of the process well-known? The campaign seems like a phenomenal waste of money to me (at the same time as practising certificate fees are being put up by 300 quid)
x Turn on thread page Beta
No soliciting here... watch
- Thread Starter
- 31-07-2009 00:06
- 31-07-2009 00:11
Waste of time: those who know they don't stand a chance seem to just throw caution to the wind and go for it anyway. Nothing that the Law Society have said is news to anyone I know going through the recruitment process, and in my opinion will just put off more people from poorer backgrounds who may be capable of gaining pupillage/a training contract by scaremongering about the price of postgraduate legal education. I would probably have been put off applying had I seen a message like that from the Law Society, because my parents couldn't have afforded to send me through law school without sponsorship, and yet I managed to secure a training contract.
Although there is certainly a problem with regards to the bottleneck of applicants at the BVC stage, I think the problem with relation to training contracts is exaggerated and the BVC problem requires a lot more than a simple warning to prospective candidates.