Government says social mobility in law is on the right track

This week saw publication of the government's independent review on social mobility, to much fanfare and many Radio 4 interviews. Social mobility tsar Alan Milburn looked at law, journalism, politics and medicine and, whilst law was the least worst profession, his conclusions were not exactly positive.

The gist of the report is that the top jobs are still dominated by an elite: "the glass ceiling has been scratched but not broken". Milburn praised law firms for "being on the right track" and leading the field for social mobility initiatives but described progress as "too slow".

The top echelons of the professions yesterday

The report criticised the top of the legal profession for being "dominated by a social elite", highlighting that 15 of 17 Supreme Court judges were educated at private schools and Oxbridge and just two of the 38 Justices of Appeal attended state school. Milburn calls this "social engineering on a grand scale".

Given the advanced years of these legal top dogs, this might be seen as a reflection of the social exclusivity of a bygone age. But Milburn suggests the problem is continuing with just 21% of law undergraduates coming from the five lowest socio-economic groups (although figures for the LPC might have been more indicative, as a good percentage convert to law later).

Milburn had four recommendations for law firms:

1. Sort out current inclusion programmes and properly monitor their impacts.

2. Make these programmes sustainable.

3. Embed social mobility initiatives into "the fabric" of each firm.

4. Recruit from as many of the country's 115 universities as possible.

But overall, law came off pretty well compared to other professions, especially journalism which was panned for being the most socially exclusive. Milburn commended the Legal Services Board for its continued focus on social mobility and praised initiatives such as Addleshaws' which identifies less privileged candidates but talented candidates who don't have the requisite A-levels and fast tracks them onto the firm's summer scheme.

So it's two cheers for the profession. Some good work but much more to be done.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Why shouldn't firms recruit from the best universities and why should they engage in social engineering? People work hard to get into the best universities and do not all come from privileged backgrounds. Not enough research has been carried out into this. They had Allen & Overy on the Today programme who skipped over the issue as to whether their work experience programme was paid. He suggested that it was but then indicated this was just expenses. Very stingey.

While law firms could and should do more to promote social mobility, when will the government join the dots and realise that the woeful standard of state education is one of the biggest impediments to social mobility? There's only so much a law firm can do to make up for 16 or more years of bad education.

erm the point of work experience for yr 10 students is to get exposure to the environment, build confidence and get access to "real" laywers. Why do they need to be paid? They wont be doing any real work, will attend seminars and lectures, shadow a lawyer, get taken to lunch. They dont need paying. We are not talking about the sort of exepreicene that media and PR types are putting up with ie 3 months unpaid work as a graduate.

Social engineering already occurs which is why the proportion of independently educated partners in the city is stagerringly out of sorts with the rest of society. They are just recuiting the best I hear you say. Well yes I have no problem with that which is why this sceheme is aimed at school children to encourage them to reach their potential and have high ambitions, and go to the best universities. It is a noble thing.

For those social elites who are worried by this, fear not - the SRA ditching the minimum trainee salary should bolster your ranks again. The glass ceiling may have been scratched, but it will be repaired in no time!

Oops - don't you well educated people know it's "independent"!!

Nothing new, and the underlying message is laudable, but then what do you expect? These are elite professions - they need the best educated. Law firms can't be blamed for going after the best. It's the state that needs to invest in state education to make sure the underprivileged get a chance to shine and can enter the best universities. There are far too many bad teachers around (how many first class students want to become teachers?), and the quality of state schools has definitely gone downhill. Social mobility is greater in Germany and Scandinavian countries (and the social divide less pronounced) because their governments invest in education. The report of course conveniently ignores that - and blames the private sector for coping with a situation that is an outcome of the decades-long neglect of primary and secondary education by successive governments. Pay state teachers better, re-introduce strict discipline into schools (i.e. train the kids to respect honour and authority like in the army, don't just exclude them), make parents directly accountable for their children's behaviour (i.e. link children's performance and behaviour to benefit entitlements), and give underpivileged children access to free extra tuition and support over the holiday breaks so they can consolidate their learning and catch up. We don't need to increase taxes for this - just redistribute state funds. This has been known to work in the gangland areas of American cities, and will likely work in the same hell-holes of Britain, too. These kids will then come through the system naturally - because they will have the means to compete with their rich counterparts. That's real social engineering, but perhaps too radical for UK politicians, many of whom are lazy and lack balls.

Too much credence is given to GCSEs, A-Levels and scores at degree and post-graduate level. The people who do well in academia don't necessarily make the best lawyers but they're the only ones who get the chance so they assume the best positions and are therefore thought of as being just that.

Have you ever met a solicitor at a City firm who was educated at an inner city Manchester comprehensive for example? The answer is almost certainly "no", even within Manchester, as they're as rare as rocking horse sh!t!

Law is all about relationships ultimately and so 90% or much higher percentage than currently should be based on what the candidate has done in work or outside of it in the real world, not whether they got straight As in qualifications that have become much easier over the last 10 years. It pretty much goes without saying that all candidates have passed the same qualifying exams in order to become an eligible trainee solicitor so concentrating so much attention on the minutiae of what could literally have been a few weaker scores is somewhat pig-headed and foolish.