Kaplan Law School has had its proposed aptitude test for the LPC squashed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). That's despite hopes that an entry test might raise the quality of the LPC intake and stop less able students throwing away good money on a course that would not ultimately lead anywhere.

RollOnFriday reported on the proposed admissions test a couple of months ago - when it was suggested that it would include a written exam, a presentation and, horrors, a ten minute interview. Sadly even this mildest of barriers to entry was too draconian for the SRA, which has refused to validate the move. So, rather predictably and depressingly, just about anyone with a degree and a pot of gold will still be able to start the LPC this year. Unlike the sensible Bar Standards Board, which has made some headway in these murky OFT-infested waters.

    The SRA quashing dissent yesterday (how it may have looked)

Unsurprisingly this was music to the ears of the College of Law's Nigel Savage, who commented that the entry tests had "all seemed rather pointless and a bit of a gimmick". That's Nigel Savage who relies on a free-flowing tide of student fees to prop up his punchy remuneration.

A Law Society review into legal training is due shortly, with aptitude tests expected to be a key point of interest. Whether it will allow law schools to put in place sensible arrangements to select students actually suitable to the LPC and continuing to a career as a solicitor (as opposed to ending up on the post-LPC debtors' scrapheap) is yet to be seen.

Having said all that - given the inability for the sole provider to successfully administrate the LNAT (an aptitude test for undergraduate law at top universities) - perhaps aptitude tests aren't the best way forward after all.
Tip Off ROF