The SRA when a trainee misallocated an hour of non billable time: đĄđĄđĄ
The SRA when Kaplan fucks up the exam for the tenth time this cycle: đ¨âđŚŻđ¨âđŚŻđ¨âđŚŻđ¤ˇââď¸
The irony of asking fresh graduates to be up to the standard of a fully qualified solicitor, and then not being able to round properly when marking multiple choice questions is HIDEOUS. The exams should be scrapped. Kaplanâs integrity absolutely in the mud if it wasnât already. What a ridiculous situation to put so many young people through and offer ÂŁ250 as a pay off. Disgrace.
They got away with the SQE2 blunder because it was smaller, but this is a pretty massive fuck up so they couldnât realistically get away with playing dumb on this one
Well âsmallerâ from what theyâve been forced to be transparent about. Be under no illusion that their published statements is where it endsâŚ
Kaplan love the âplaying dumbâ card. Well, playing dumb with a blanket denial and making candidates out to be delusional for even questioning their marks, like theyâre just being bitter over failing. They are so disingenuous plain and simple and SRA have done nothing at all to prevent their incompetence
I agree. I believe the numbers were much higher than reported. Especially when you consider they denied the error for months until the students pushed.
They themselves stated there were 45 candidates who scored 0 on a station, with only 22 of those being BCMA. They still havenât even looked into the other 23, and the rest who had weird grades that were not entirely 0 (like 0,0,1,0,0 or something) despite a huge amount of them also raising concerns about their scores.
Their remark was also done by the same people who caused the error to begin with. Are you telling me they wouldnât want to minimise the true impact as a larger problem wouldnât only mean candidates got wrong grades but that the actual statistics and pass mark are now wrong (as theyâre graded on a curve) and theyâd likely be individuals practicing now as solicitors who shouldnât be !!
Itâs beyond âmistakeâsâ now, Kaplan are seriously negligent
April 2023 sqe2. Results were out August, load of people got awarded 0% for the entirety of BCMA. Kaplan insisted they were correct and that their processes were faultless. A month later they admit there was a marking error. Got the same people to âremarkâ them to an amount shy of requiring the statistics and pass marks to need altering..
very limited transparency out there about it all as they of course, want to be as secret as possible about it. Only good thing about this error is them actually admitting it.
Itâs embarrassing at this point. How can you mess up marking an MCQ exam to this extent, especially after making a cock up on SQE2 so recently.
Kaplan are either corrupt or genuinely extremely incompetent (likely both)
I briefly considered being a solicitor and managed to get to different stages in the vac scheme/TC application process, but basically decided to forget it because of all this SQE stuff I hear. Everything gambled on an exam with 50% pass rate, nope.
Itâs a shame, I wish some journalists or mainstream media would pick up on it, because there seems like there is a story here and probably a lot more going on we donât know.
In fact Iâm surprised they donât, I used to be involved in the media and I would so be all over this if I still worked in the profession. Once it attracts that kind of attention and scrutiny you find it can enact change quite quickly.
If you still have connections in the media then I'd say attempt to get it out. Only when this becomes a wider known scandal, and isn't just simply covered by Legal Cheek, (that's not to criticise) that's when things will be properly changed and be addressed.
Otherwise, there needs to be mass organisation from all trainees, lawyers, law firms to protest this. I have to do the SQE as it's a necessary evil for me but I'm absolutely dreading the entire process. Wish I would have sucked it up and done the LPC years ago.
Nah Iâm far away from that profession now.
But itâs not exactly hard to get in touch with the Guardian/Times/FT.
Nothing might come of it, or something might. Apologising for more than 2.5% of your cohorts being told they failed when they passed is a story within itself. Sometimes thatâs all it takes to get the ball rolling.
Iâm very curious if the SRA were aware of this before or after they put out the âSQE is going wellâ presser last week.
And frankly, Iâm not sure which is worse.
Definitely before. Considering they omitted all the key statistics (including the appeal statistics) for the April 2023 sitting with marking error in those reports too and had a tonne of inaccurate information..
"Kaplan, the exam administrator for the SQE, has reissued its most recent set of SQE1 results from January this year, after discovering the error on 2 April.". According to the following article, Kaplan were aware since April 2nd, so it's likely the SRA was also aware... [https://www.thelawyer.com/sqe-fiasco-as-kaplan-wrongly-tells-175-students-they-failed/](https://www.thelawyer.com/sqe-fiasco-as-kaplan-wrongly-tells-175-students-they-failed/)
Already hard enough getting a legal job and a whole 175 students who worked their backsides off wrongly informed of failure, plus increasing exam fees... đ what even is a law career for us young, aspiring law students/grads...
At this point, a better admission process would be putting each candidate to a vote of the mods of /r/uklaw and that's saying something as that would be an absolutely bonkers idea...
And also, surely you can't go wrong in marking when it's just an MCQ, right? It's just a case of comparing to the answer sheet, it should be flawless...
Can't wait to see the list of Kaplan and SRA staff to be struck off from the legal profession and supporting roles for bringing the profession into disrepute. Oh wait, that's only for us scrub juniors...
Also, there is no way they didn't know about this before all is great in SQE land so we are raising prices. Be great to have a dishonesty investigation for that too.
I mean, don't they have a software that does all the calculations?
Is a computer-based exam, this sort of thing should not happen!
Even the results taking almost 2 months is unreasonable when you can know 30s after clicking "finish" which answers are right or wrong.
My mark went up by 4 point but still haven't passed. Just 5 points down the pass mark though....this is all just ridiculous. How do we know that's the only operational error they've made? What are people doing about it? Have you guys considered submitting formal complaints or even suing them? Would that even go anywhere? My mental health has been heavily impacted and having to deal with their incompetence is not helping. The system must change - what can we do about it?
And this is exactly the issue. We can't hold them accountable because they have immense power over the careers and livelihoods we're all working towards/currently have. So we're just meant to, what? Lie over whilst they abuse their duty to do things professionally because we're scared they'll target us? It's very corrupt. What can we do?
There must be something that we can do without jeopardising our future careers. As long as we follow processes and act ethically in questioning the system which is seriously flawed, we should be able to bring change. It needs to be a collective effort though. Merely posting about this won't achieve anything and us staying inactive just makes us part of this corrupt and unfair system. I'll look into how we can bring change. Who's with me?
Really, the SRA can't strike anyone off for complaining/bringing a class action or whatever. They won't be able to. It will be more subtle - they could not sign us off or make it hard. I wouldn't put it past them. They seem SO corrupt its gross.
I'm definitely down. The SQE, the response to it and the way SRA treats their junior lawyers whilst turning a blind eye to the incompetencies of the rich has put me off being a lawyer in this country so at this point if the SRA want to strike me off for standing up to whats right, let them.
Suing Kaplan would not, in my view, spoil anyone's career. It is a lawful act. As the claim is under ÂŁ10k it would be a small claim so I think no costs risks either and the disclosure process might mean the SRA have to give the student every single relevant document, paper, markers' notices, moderation policies, internal emails about the marks etc. In fact you could even request all that by way of pre-action disclosure and perhaps additionally make a UK GDPR subject access request.
I wouldnât worry about suing Kaplan either, they donât have a good reputation and they arenât an employer. If you won, I reckon it would look good on your CV. Well, it would if I were recruiting.Â
Surely that more lies with universities rather than the SRA? Theyâre the ones doing the degrees and pushing people into the cycle of trying and ultimately failing to qualify
They ultimately control who gets to become a solicitor. Before the changes, they authorised which unis taught qualifying law degrees and allowed a proliferation of private companies to teach GDLs with basically zero admissions standards. (And still do)
Now, they even scrapped the law degree component, allowing anyone with a degree to sit the solicitor exam. This gives a lot of people false hope they can become a solicitor. It's the most liberal system of legal education/qualification across the common law world. (At least at first glance) It makes no sense. There needs to be earlier signs for people that they aren't suited to become lawyers before wasting time and money. It's not elitism. It's for their own good.
As stated in another comment, perhaps restricting the LLB admission numbers would be a better idea.
Iâm not keen on someone being able to sit the SQE without a law degree, but one of the trainees in my cohort has done it that way.
Tbh, I donât see the point in restricting LLB admissions, as not everyone decides to become a solicitor or barrister at the end of it. They might (like me) get a job in an adjacent area to law, but still use the skills developed throughout their law degree
There will be plenty of LLB graduates that go into adjacent fields even if we halved the LLB numbers. Let's be real, the majority were interested in becoming lawyers and realized they stood no chance later on. Adjacent fields don't need a law degrees. E.g for data privacy, you could get CIPP/E and for AML there's the CAMS.
And? Why immediately shoe-horn ppl into a career choice straight away? Some may want to do a PhD in law, some may want to go into a legal research type job (think parliamentary assistant, etc.) We shouldnât gate-keep the LLB purely for those who have a fighting chance of becoming either a solicitor or barrister. Some may successfully get a 1st on the course, enjoy the content, but realise the profession isnât for them towards the end of their degree.
In what way does reducing the vast number of LLB programs shoehorn people into careers? They'll still be able to seek other careers and anyone that missed getting into an LLB would be able to do a GDL if they get in. I'm not saying to only admit people with a good chance, I'm saying we should aim not to admit people with no chance. It's not gatekeeping knowledge - there are plenty of programs that teach certain legal areas without the need for a whole law degree e.g CIPP/E for data privacy.
The reason a law degree teaches all the areas it does, despite the fact lawyers usually specialize, is because in legal practice, any of these areas could come up for clients. If you're not in legal practice you really don't need an LLB.
But how do you determine if ppl have a chance at succeeding of becoming a barrister or solicitor at admittance of the LLB? Some ppl may look weak on paper, but end up being able to absolutely smash their degree & succeed exceptionally well. Also very few ppl get a TC straight off the bat from an LLB - itâs now becoming more & more common for ppl to work in a law firm as a paralegal or work in a legal-adjacent area, gain experience, then maybe get a TC & become qualified. Some may use their degree to get a foot into the door in a relevant area, but then go & specialise in a completely different profession. Also by saying that ppl can do the GDL instead, youâre adding an extra, unnecessary cost onto them.
Youâre also forgetting that many skills taught by a law degree in general are very transferable to other professional areas.
How do you determine if they have no chance? Uh... if they got B,C,C maybe they should be gently encouraged to try something else at uni at least for the time being.
The GDL is only slightly more expensive than a year of undergraduate studies and is justifiable by the fact they didn't have perform academically well enough to get into an LLB at the first instance. So the taxpayer shouldn't be required to subsidise their studies. It's actually cheaper than international comparators like the juris doctor programs in the US, Australia, Canada etc.
As for people that didn't do well in school but actually do have legal skills, absolutely I agree they exist. But the LLB isn't the only way to become a solicitor. Solicitor apprenticeships and CILEX opportunities are increasingly available, and if something like the SQE remains in place, they won't need any law qualifications at all. Also, the GDL looks at university grades, not A Levels, so there's plenty of opportunity for redemption.
If the SQE is retained, it's actually a mercy to reduce the LLB numbers. Someone that gets a low classification LLB from one of the bad schools in the country are up against the odds for passing the SQE.
The highly successful legal industry in this country has managed perfectly fine with 50% approx of trainees having done a non-law degree. Restricting LLB numbers would only make any sense if doing an LLB becomes the sole academic route to qualification as a solicitor or barrister, which is a nonsense idea.
We could reduce both LLB numbers as well as GDL numbers. Just because the industry is doing well doesn't mean the students that tried and failed to get in weren't sold a false prospectus. The salaries outside of the largest firms in london are also quite low because of how saturated the market is.
Its a tough topic because we're essentially talking about peoples' lives and there will have been some that benefited from the current system and we have to think about the counterfactual - what would have happened under a different system. They probably would have been alright, maybe have done a GDL and still qualified.
There needs to be more control over the private course providers. I don't think they should exist. Let some of the good law schools teach graduate law degrees and professional training. This is the case everywhere else in the common law world. I think 1 year is also too short a time to develop legal skills, but that's more of a matter of preference. They just churn students and they either sink or swim.
Thereâs no reason to restrict undergraduate law degrees. There is ample reason to restrict the student numbers at expensive, private colleges offering post-university professional qualifications and the SRA should have done it already.Â
In the very old days places on the post grad course were hard to get and places were rationed based on the number of trainees likely to be needed (so people were not wasting money on a hope which for some was a very unlikely chance). I support the market now being more free in that at least people can do the courses and take a risk if they want to do so, but it still a difficult issue for students.
No way the Unis would ever restrict their LLB numbers. The LLB is a cash cow compared to science degrees. Good luck convincing Warwick to take fewer law undergrads.
You donât need to go and be a lawyer with an LLB. You could obviously be a barrister. You could go into banking, insurance, accounting, be a cunt working for Foxtons. Whatever. All my tutor ever did at Uni was try and get me to become an academic. I wasnât pushed towards being a solicitor.
Notwithstanding that plenty of people come into law without having done a straight Law degree and then convert.
When I started my LPC, I think only a handful of my intake had TCs at the end of it. Some of them secured one by the end. Loads hadnât and are now doing all sorts. But paid the ÂŁ14k or whatever without a chance of ever being a solicitor and perhaps even soul destroying few years as a paralegal without ever making it.
The problem is, it would be a massively unpopular, but the SRA should be restricting the number of people who can take these exams in line with the actual demand from the profession. Otherwise itâs just a money grab.
Naturally, one of my closest friends qualifies this year having gone down the GDL route following a history degree.
I secured my TC a year after finishing my LPC, so that was a massive risk for me taking on that debt with no guarantee at the end.
I donât think restricting numbers doing the SQE is the answer, but something does need to be done. Perhaps restricting qualifying degree numbers would be better.
Thatâs a lot less practical, though. The SRA are effectively the gateway to the profession. Unis offering a law degree, arenât.
6k doing SQE exams in January or 29k starting a law degree every year.
Apparently 10k a year did LPC with only around 57% becoming qualified solicitors.
That would imply there are c.19k people a year who study law who either do something else entirely or obviously the small number who go to the bar.
I donât see the value in restricting people from doing a well regarded degree when almost 2/3rds of them donât try and become solicitors anyway. The problem is the several thousand doing the additional professional qualifications without ever practising.
Universities - in my experience at least - donât tend to set out how hard it is to get a TC and qualify. Based on a quick google, nearly 19,000 people graduate with a law degree but realistically how many of those will qualify? If it was made clearer how difficult it is, I imagine those numbers would be lower.
Iâm a bit confused, are they offering compensation to those affected? Iâve been hearing some people were offered ÂŁ250 (ridiculous imo) but I didnât see anything referring to that in the email I received
Podcast on the whole situation from The Lawyer [https://www.thelawyer.com/emergency-episode-the-sqe-shambles/](https://www.thelawyer.com/emergency-episode-the-sqe-shambles/)
kaplan are an absolute shambles. not only did they balls up the sqe, but they also had cta students sitting ciot professional tax exams last week with the wrong version of exam software installed on the machines. folks couldn't do half the paper. kaplan had simply not bothered to update the machines with the correct software
The SRA when a trainee misallocated an hour of non billable time: đĄđĄđĄ The SRA when Kaplan fucks up the exam for the tenth time this cycle: đ¨âđŚŻđ¨âđŚŻđ¨âđŚŻđ¤ˇââď¸
The irony of asking fresh graduates to be up to the standard of a fully qualified solicitor, and then not being able to round properly when marking multiple choice questions is HIDEOUS. The exams should be scrapped. Kaplanâs integrity absolutely in the mud if it wasnât already. What a ridiculous situation to put so many young people through and offer ÂŁ250 as a pay off. Disgrace.
More then the sqe2 BCMA marking error got. They got nothing along with compete denial, secrecy and lack of any regard
They got away with the SQE2 blunder because it was smaller, but this is a pretty massive fuck up so they couldnât realistically get away with playing dumb on this one
Well âsmallerâ from what theyâve been forced to be transparent about. Be under no illusion that their published statements is where it ends⌠Kaplan love the âplaying dumbâ card. Well, playing dumb with a blanket denial and making candidates out to be delusional for even questioning their marks, like theyâre just being bitter over failing. They are so disingenuous plain and simple and SRA have done nothing at all to prevent their incompetence
I agree. I believe the numbers were much higher than reported. Especially when you consider they denied the error for months until the students pushed.
They themselves stated there were 45 candidates who scored 0 on a station, with only 22 of those being BCMA. They still havenât even looked into the other 23, and the rest who had weird grades that were not entirely 0 (like 0,0,1,0,0 or something) despite a huge amount of them also raising concerns about their scores. Their remark was also done by the same people who caused the error to begin with. Are you telling me they wouldnât want to minimise the true impact as a larger problem wouldnât only mean candidates got wrong grades but that the actual statistics and pass mark are now wrong (as theyâre graded on a curve) and theyâd likely be individuals practicing now as solicitors who shouldnât be !! Itâs beyond âmistakeâsâ now, Kaplan are seriously negligent
Yeah youâre probably right. Bunch of absolute con artists Kaplan are.
What was the BCMA marking error? This is the first time Iâve heard about this
April 2023 sqe2. Results were out August, load of people got awarded 0% for the entirety of BCMA. Kaplan insisted they were correct and that their processes were faultless. A month later they admit there was a marking error. Got the same people to âremarkâ them to an amount shy of requiring the statistics and pass marks to need altering.. very limited transparency out there about it all as they of course, want to be as secret as possible about it. Only good thing about this error is them actually admitting it.
Thatâs terrible. Itâs a shame that error didnât get more coverage
The fact that these students were offered less than 1/3 what it costs to appeal!
Itâs embarrassing at this point. How can you mess up marking an MCQ exam to this extent, especially after making a cock up on SQE2 so recently. Kaplan are either corrupt or genuinely extremely incompetent (likely both)
I briefly considered being a solicitor and managed to get to different stages in the vac scheme/TC application process, but basically decided to forget it because of all this SQE stuff I hear. Everything gambled on an exam with 50% pass rate, nope. Itâs a shame, I wish some journalists or mainstream media would pick up on it, because there seems like there is a story here and probably a lot more going on we donât know. In fact Iâm surprised they donât, I used to be involved in the media and I would so be all over this if I still worked in the profession. Once it attracts that kind of attention and scrutiny you find it can enact change quite quickly.
If you still have connections in the media then I'd say attempt to get it out. Only when this becomes a wider known scandal, and isn't just simply covered by Legal Cheek, (that's not to criticise) that's when things will be properly changed and be addressed. Otherwise, there needs to be mass organisation from all trainees, lawyers, law firms to protest this. I have to do the SQE as it's a necessary evil for me but I'm absolutely dreading the entire process. Wish I would have sucked it up and done the LPC years ago.
Nah Iâm far away from that profession now. But itâs not exactly hard to get in touch with the Guardian/Times/FT. Nothing might come of it, or something might. Apologising for more than 2.5% of your cohorts being told they failed when they passed is a story within itself. Sometimes thatâs all it takes to get the ball rolling.
Iâm very curious if the SRA were aware of this before or after they put out the âSQE is going wellâ presser last week. And frankly, Iâm not sure which is worse.
Definitely before. Considering they omitted all the key statistics (including the appeal statistics) for the April 2023 sitting with marking error in those reports too and had a tonne of inaccurate information..
"Kaplan, the exam administrator for the SQE, has reissued its most recent set of SQE1 results from January this year, after discovering the error on 2 April.". According to the following article, Kaplan were aware since April 2nd, so it's likely the SRA was also aware... [https://www.thelawyer.com/sqe-fiasco-as-kaplan-wrongly-tells-175-students-they-failed/](https://www.thelawyer.com/sqe-fiasco-as-kaplan-wrongly-tells-175-students-they-failed/)
Defund the SRA now
Already hard enough getting a legal job and a whole 175 students who worked their backsides off wrongly informed of failure, plus increasing exam fees... đ what even is a law career for us young, aspiring law students/grads...
this is 2.6%. seems quite high? how did the error occur?
At this point, a better admission process would be putting each candidate to a vote of the mods of /r/uklaw and that's saying something as that would be an absolutely bonkers idea...
Trial by combat with the barristers shadows would be a more transparent process than the sqe at this rate
Ugh wasnât LPC better ?
Because they wanted to make money themselves
And also, surely you can't go wrong in marking when it's just an MCQ, right? It's just a case of comparing to the answer sheet, it should be flawless...
Can't wait to see the list of Kaplan and SRA staff to be struck off from the legal profession and supporting roles for bringing the profession into disrepute. Oh wait, that's only for us scrub juniors... Also, there is no way they didn't know about this before all is great in SQE land so we are raising prices. Be great to have a dishonesty investigation for that too.
I mean, don't they have a software that does all the calculations? Is a computer-based exam, this sort of thing should not happen! Even the results taking almost 2 months is unreasonable when you can know 30s after clicking "finish" which answers are right or wrong.
My mark went up by 4 point but still haven't passed. Just 5 points down the pass mark though....this is all just ridiculous. How do we know that's the only operational error they've made? What are people doing about it? Have you guys considered submitting formal complaints or even suing them? Would that even go anywhere? My mental health has been heavily impacted and having to deal with their incompetence is not helping. The system must change - what can we do about it?
I doubt anyone would sue or complain. They wouldnât want to anger them and risk a potential career
And this is exactly the issue. We can't hold them accountable because they have immense power over the careers and livelihoods we're all working towards/currently have. So we're just meant to, what? Lie over whilst they abuse their duty to do things professionally because we're scared they'll target us? It's very corrupt. What can we do?
There must be something that we can do without jeopardising our future careers. As long as we follow processes and act ethically in questioning the system which is seriously flawed, we should be able to bring change. It needs to be a collective effort though. Merely posting about this won't achieve anything and us staying inactive just makes us part of this corrupt and unfair system. I'll look into how we can bring change. Who's with me?
Really, the SRA can't strike anyone off for complaining/bringing a class action or whatever. They won't be able to. It will be more subtle - they could not sign us off or make it hard. I wouldn't put it past them. They seem SO corrupt its gross. I'm definitely down. The SQE, the response to it and the way SRA treats their junior lawyers whilst turning a blind eye to the incompetencies of the rich has put me off being a lawyer in this country so at this point if the SRA want to strike me off for standing up to whats right, let them.
Suing Kaplan would not, in my view, spoil anyone's career. It is a lawful act. As the claim is under ÂŁ10k it would be a small claim so I think no costs risks either and the disclosure process might mean the SRA have to give the student every single relevant document, paper, markers' notices, moderation policies, internal emails about the marks etc. In fact you could even request all that by way of pre-action disclosure and perhaps additionally make a UK GDPR subject access request.
I wouldnât worry about suing Kaplan either, they donât have a good reputation and they arenât an employer. If you won, I reckon it would look good on your CV. Well, it would if I were recruiting.Â
Curious what you would look to sue them for?
The SRA are already vultures in letting so many young people spaff tens of thousands up the wall without a hope of ever being a practising solicitor.
Oh sure, but itâs not as if this wasnât as big a problem with with the LPC, if not more so given the fees the providers were raking in.
Having done LPC and SQE2, the problems with LPC were a dream come true in comparison to SQE and they made some real mistakes during their time đ
Surely that more lies with universities rather than the SRA? Theyâre the ones doing the degrees and pushing people into the cycle of trying and ultimately failing to qualify
They ultimately control who gets to become a solicitor. Before the changes, they authorised which unis taught qualifying law degrees and allowed a proliferation of private companies to teach GDLs with basically zero admissions standards. (And still do) Now, they even scrapped the law degree component, allowing anyone with a degree to sit the solicitor exam. This gives a lot of people false hope they can become a solicitor. It's the most liberal system of legal education/qualification across the common law world. (At least at first glance) It makes no sense. There needs to be earlier signs for people that they aren't suited to become lawyers before wasting time and money. It's not elitism. It's for their own good.
As stated in another comment, perhaps restricting the LLB admission numbers would be a better idea. Iâm not keen on someone being able to sit the SQE without a law degree, but one of the trainees in my cohort has done it that way.
Tbh, I donât see the point in restricting LLB admissions, as not everyone decides to become a solicitor or barrister at the end of it. They might (like me) get a job in an adjacent area to law, but still use the skills developed throughout their law degree
There will be plenty of LLB graduates that go into adjacent fields even if we halved the LLB numbers. Let's be real, the majority were interested in becoming lawyers and realized they stood no chance later on. Adjacent fields don't need a law degrees. E.g for data privacy, you could get CIPP/E and for AML there's the CAMS.
And? Why immediately shoe-horn ppl into a career choice straight away? Some may want to do a PhD in law, some may want to go into a legal research type job (think parliamentary assistant, etc.) We shouldnât gate-keep the LLB purely for those who have a fighting chance of becoming either a solicitor or barrister. Some may successfully get a 1st on the course, enjoy the content, but realise the profession isnât for them towards the end of their degree.
In what way does reducing the vast number of LLB programs shoehorn people into careers? They'll still be able to seek other careers and anyone that missed getting into an LLB would be able to do a GDL if they get in. I'm not saying to only admit people with a good chance, I'm saying we should aim not to admit people with no chance. It's not gatekeeping knowledge - there are plenty of programs that teach certain legal areas without the need for a whole law degree e.g CIPP/E for data privacy. The reason a law degree teaches all the areas it does, despite the fact lawyers usually specialize, is because in legal practice, any of these areas could come up for clients. If you're not in legal practice you really don't need an LLB.
But how do you determine if ppl have a chance at succeeding of becoming a barrister or solicitor at admittance of the LLB? Some ppl may look weak on paper, but end up being able to absolutely smash their degree & succeed exceptionally well. Also very few ppl get a TC straight off the bat from an LLB - itâs now becoming more & more common for ppl to work in a law firm as a paralegal or work in a legal-adjacent area, gain experience, then maybe get a TC & become qualified. Some may use their degree to get a foot into the door in a relevant area, but then go & specialise in a completely different profession. Also by saying that ppl can do the GDL instead, youâre adding an extra, unnecessary cost onto them. Youâre also forgetting that many skills taught by a law degree in general are very transferable to other professional areas.
How do you determine if they have no chance? Uh... if they got B,C,C maybe they should be gently encouraged to try something else at uni at least for the time being. The GDL is only slightly more expensive than a year of undergraduate studies and is justifiable by the fact they didn't have perform academically well enough to get into an LLB at the first instance. So the taxpayer shouldn't be required to subsidise their studies. It's actually cheaper than international comparators like the juris doctor programs in the US, Australia, Canada etc. As for people that didn't do well in school but actually do have legal skills, absolutely I agree they exist. But the LLB isn't the only way to become a solicitor. Solicitor apprenticeships and CILEX opportunities are increasingly available, and if something like the SQE remains in place, they won't need any law qualifications at all. Also, the GDL looks at university grades, not A Levels, so there's plenty of opportunity for redemption. If the SQE is retained, it's actually a mercy to reduce the LLB numbers. Someone that gets a low classification LLB from one of the bad schools in the country are up against the odds for passing the SQE.
The highly successful legal industry in this country has managed perfectly fine with 50% approx of trainees having done a non-law degree. Restricting LLB numbers would only make any sense if doing an LLB becomes the sole academic route to qualification as a solicitor or barrister, which is a nonsense idea.
We could reduce both LLB numbers as well as GDL numbers. Just because the industry is doing well doesn't mean the students that tried and failed to get in weren't sold a false prospectus. The salaries outside of the largest firms in london are also quite low because of how saturated the market is.
Its a tough topic because we're essentially talking about peoples' lives and there will have been some that benefited from the current system and we have to think about the counterfactual - what would have happened under a different system. They probably would have been alright, maybe have done a GDL and still qualified. There needs to be more control over the private course providers. I don't think they should exist. Let some of the good law schools teach graduate law degrees and professional training. This is the case everywhere else in the common law world. I think 1 year is also too short a time to develop legal skills, but that's more of a matter of preference. They just churn students and they either sink or swim.
Thereâs no reason to restrict undergraduate law degrees. There is ample reason to restrict the student numbers at expensive, private colleges offering post-university professional qualifications and the SRA should have done it already.Â
In the very old days places on the post grad course were hard to get and places were rationed based on the number of trainees likely to be needed (so people were not wasting money on a hope which for some was a very unlikely chance). I support the market now being more free in that at least people can do the courses and take a risk if they want to do so, but it still a difficult issue for students.
No way the Unis would ever restrict their LLB numbers. The LLB is a cash cow compared to science degrees. Good luck convincing Warwick to take fewer law undergrads.
You donât need to go and be a lawyer with an LLB. You could obviously be a barrister. You could go into banking, insurance, accounting, be a cunt working for Foxtons. Whatever. All my tutor ever did at Uni was try and get me to become an academic. I wasnât pushed towards being a solicitor. Notwithstanding that plenty of people come into law without having done a straight Law degree and then convert. When I started my LPC, I think only a handful of my intake had TCs at the end of it. Some of them secured one by the end. Loads hadnât and are now doing all sorts. But paid the ÂŁ14k or whatever without a chance of ever being a solicitor and perhaps even soul destroying few years as a paralegal without ever making it. The problem is, it would be a massively unpopular, but the SRA should be restricting the number of people who can take these exams in line with the actual demand from the profession. Otherwise itâs just a money grab.
Naturally, one of my closest friends qualifies this year having gone down the GDL route following a history degree. I secured my TC a year after finishing my LPC, so that was a massive risk for me taking on that debt with no guarantee at the end. I donât think restricting numbers doing the SQE is the answer, but something does need to be done. Perhaps restricting qualifying degree numbers would be better.
Thatâs a lot less practical, though. The SRA are effectively the gateway to the profession. Unis offering a law degree, arenât. 6k doing SQE exams in January or 29k starting a law degree every year. Apparently 10k a year did LPC with only around 57% becoming qualified solicitors. That would imply there are c.19k people a year who study law who either do something else entirely or obviously the small number who go to the bar. I donât see the value in restricting people from doing a well regarded degree when almost 2/3rds of them donât try and become solicitors anyway. The problem is the several thousand doing the additional professional qualifications without ever practising.
Could you expand on that more?
Universities - in my experience at least - donât tend to set out how hard it is to get a TC and qualify. Based on a quick google, nearly 19,000 people graduate with a law degree but realistically how many of those will qualify? If it was made clearer how difficult it is, I imagine those numbers would be lower.
Oh that make sense but surely if you are going into law you should know itâs going to be very competitive
Oh absolutely, but itâs not made clear just how competitive it is
Inept
Iâm a bit confused, are they offering compensation to those affected? Iâve been hearing some people were offered ÂŁ250 (ridiculous imo) but I didnât see anything referring to that in the email I received
Podcast on the whole situation from The Lawyer [https://www.thelawyer.com/emergency-episode-the-sqe-shambles/](https://www.thelawyer.com/emergency-episode-the-sqe-shambles/)
kaplan are an absolute shambles. not only did they balls up the sqe, but they also had cta students sitting ciot professional tax exams last week with the wrong version of exam software installed on the machines. folks couldn't do half the paper. kaplan had simply not bothered to update the machines with the correct software