Last week Zoe Saunders, a barrister with Bristol set St John’s Chambers, wrote an excellent response to a blog written by aspiring barrister and mother of three, @dusty_cobweb.
@dustycobweb's blog bemoaned the lack of access to the bar for those who've taken a less conventional route, who don't have a industrial quantities of A*s and Oxbridge double firsts up their sleeves and who cannot afford to set themselves apart through six month unpaid internships at sexy-sounding NGOs.
Saunders, whilst sympathetic and all that to the plight of a pupillage hunter, was a bit narked at the constant criticism of the diversity of the bar and the peddling of an 'easy myth' that only public-school-then-Oxbridge educated toffs will ever get to don a wig. The bar is, she says, a meritocracy and you don't need to have fistfuls of A*s to get there.
Saunders is from a non-traditional background (well, for the bar at any rate) - female, state school educated and non-Oxbridge (although Bristol's hardly shabby). So she's well placed to discuss this issue. She made it through hard work and determination and maintains that anyone can do the same. Candidates don't need to have superlative academics, she insists, they need to write a damn good application.
That means a whopping 97.5% of applicants will fall by the wayside before first interview stage. And realistically, without great academics (or perhaps an Erin Brokovich-style past) how is anyone ever going to make it into the 2.5%? Saunders' Chamber's own website is revealing. Recent additions boast first class degrees from the likes of Oxbridge, Bristol and Leeds, top marks in the BVC/BPTC and all have armfuls of academic prizes and scholarships.
And this is no bad thing. Chambers shouldn't be criticised for wanting the best candidates for a job which is intellectually demanding and pretty gruelling - and there is nothing wrong with employing academic over-achievers. They all do it.
What can be criticised are the law schools which, through low entry requirements and hundreds more course places than there are pupillages, happily fill their coffers with the £15k a year fees from legions of wannabe barristers. Many of whom, in all honesty, don't have a shot.
The Inner Temple has some frightening statistics. Fewer than 3% of BPTC students with 2:2s will ever get a pupillage and of those who do, most will be on second careers. Yet despite this a 2:2 is all a wannabe barrister, with pocketfuls of cash (or mountainous debts), needs to enrol on the BPTC.
Saunders is right, there is increasing diversity at the bar and a place for those who have less conventional backgrounds. But the stark fact remains, as the Inner Temple prospectus makes clear - "high academic merit remains the leading factor of progression to pupillage."
Comments
4
1
However, I was less impressed by the rampant sexism, racism, and xenephobia at later stages. It was made clear repeatedly in informal conversations and attitudes that women, foreigners, and "non-traditional" backgrounds were inferior to the British white males (which oddly includes Australians/Kiwis.
2
0
Looking then to the bar, surely similar principles apply. Why pay for a place on the BPTC (BVC as was), unless you have a pupillage? Statistical illiterateracy, under the euphemisms of 'persistence and determination' isn't impressive. (i.e. the inability to recognise that with a 2:2 you are all but wasting your time, and even with a 2:1 you are still up against fierce competition).
Personally, as a left-wing, pro-regulatory, bleeding-heart liberal, I favour limiting the number of LPC/BPTC places providers can sell, but recognise the anti-competitive issues associated with this. Some would argue that in the grim, dog-eat-dog capitalist "real world", trainee lawyers should grow up and take responsibility for their lives, and only embark upon the LPC/BPTC if they have already secured a training contract/pupillage, respectively. What, if anything, is wrong with this argument?
I fully favour diversity, but not academic diversity: I'd rather have academic excellence in my lawyers. I was lazy at school, and only got mediocre A-levels. My friends who worked at lot harder got better A-levels. The top percentage of those went to Oxbridge. Good luck to them - they worked harder, were better than me, and deserved it. Life isn't equal (or fair, incidentally). We have two exceptionally strong universities which have the admirable ability to be very selective. Those individuals have done better at age 17/18, and will continue to do so for the rest of their working lives. Well done them. If I need a barrister, I would rather have someone who has a track record of excellence from aged 17 years old onwards. Not someone who has a chip on their shoulder because they went to an ex-Polytechnic and asserts "It's not fair!". I fail to understand why: "Reading through the CVs of recently-called juniors at London commercial sets is deeply depressing." as the commenter who posted on 2 Nov 11 at 1418 claimed.
8
5
1
4
2
5