If you have set your sights upon a career at the Bar it is almost certain that you will, by now, be familiar with the Wood Report. If not, you should be. As it is over a hundred pages long it is beyond the scope of this post to do more than highlight a few of the interesting findings or recommendations. What I have found most refreshing about the report on the whole is that it provides a straightforward picture of some fairly useful, and previously unavailable (I think), quantitative and qualitative information about the BVC and the people who study on it, as well as providing some figures on pupillage.
Let's start with the number of applicants for pupillage compared with the number of pupillages available. We all know that the number of students who enrol on the BVC every year far outnumbers the number of pupillages available in the same year. For example, the report confirms that in 2006-7, 1932 students registered on the BVC, an increase on previous years. In the same year 471 pupillages were offered, a decrease on previous years. But these figures alone do not illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy between the numbers applying to the Bar and the number of pupillages available. Whilst some of those who enrol on the BVC each year will not be seeking pupillage, there are many others who have done the BVC in previous years who still are. The picture which emerges at paragraph 28 of the report is much more sobering. In the present round of OLPAS there are 294 pupillages on offer and there have been applications from 3768 individual students. That's a ratio of one pupillage per 12.8 applicants, putting the odds of success at around 8%. Now I'm not a betting girl (not often, anyway) but I wouldn't regard those odds as being particularly attractive by anybody's standards.
The report also gives us some insight into what classification of degree pupils have. Not surprisingly, year on year, the level of qualification is increasing. The report demonstrates a certain amount of wavering either way in relation to the numbers of pupils with Firsts or Upper Seconds, but each year the number of pupils with a Lower Second has decreased. Nevertheless, it is clear that a Lower Second is not a complete bar to pupillage and so the report does not suggest that an Upper Second should be a minimum pre-requisite to acceptance on the BVC.
Interestingly, the report is quite critical of the standard of spoken and written English amongst students on the BVC. This criticism is by no means reserved for overseas students for whom English is not their first language. This recognition is long overdue. It is quite appalling really that students who have obtained a degree of any description should be incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together, either orally or on paper. Mind you, some of the responsibility for this shameful state of affairs must be placed at the door of the universities who award degrees to these people, not least because it devalues the education which they themselves offer. The ability to write in an intelligible fashion ought to be an essential basic requirement at any higher education institution.
One of the most striking statements made in the report is to be found in paragraph 31 which refers to students who "do not have the innate ability necessary for success at the Bar and, even in a world in which there was greater parity between the number of students and the number of pupillages, they would not be offered a pupillage". One hopes that any aptitude test which is adopted to introduce some necessary quality control into the admission-to-the-BVC process will prevent such people getting onto the course, for their own sake as much as for anyone else's. After all, the report recognises that students who fall into this category are never likely to get a pupillage. However, there are always some who manage to slip through the net. It is important, surely, that there is also some process of ongoing re-evaluation which would enable course providers to remove those who demonstrate a complete lack of aptitude for the work of a barrister once on the course. After all, one of the major concerns expressed in the report is the extent to which the poorer students inhibit the progress and the learning experience of those who are competent to be on the course. Moreover, the fact that this report recognises that such woefully ill equipped students have been identified as being on the BVC illustrates that once those students are on the course, at present, even when it must be blatantly obvious to all except the willfully blind that they have no future in the profession for which they are being vocationally trained, the providers take no meaningful steps to do something about it.
The cost of the BVC also comes under some scrutiny. The disparity in cost between the least and most expensive providers is really quite stark. Over £4000 marks the difference between the two. That's a hell of alot of money. Good to know that as part of the re-accreditation process providers would have to give advance notice of their fees and be expected to justify them in some way (assuming the recommendations are accepted and implemented). However, whether this is just a bit of a paper tiger remains to be seen. This particular sceptic rather suspects it will be.
However, whilst it is refreshing to see some of these findings set out on paper, backed up by qualitative and quantitative data, one of the more interesting aspects of the report has to do with the issue of the BVC constituting part of a master's degree. The report refuses to be drawn into making any recommendations in this respect, suggesting that it is not a matter with which the BSB should be concerned. One paragraph, however, speaks volumes. In paragraph 34, in response to criticism that the teaching standards on the BVC are said by some to be low, it states "at least in the knowledge areas the task is to import basic information rather than analyse intellectually demanding problems". This surely demonstrates that the aims of the BVC and the aims of a master's degree are simply poles apart. The report recognises that the BVC is a professional qualification; it is vocational. A master's degree is, or at least should be, intellectually challenging, encouraging people to explore original and creative ideas in response to their subject. The notion that the BVC could constitute the substantial foundation for a master's qualification if a couple more modules are subsequently passed should be roundly rejected as simply another cynical scheme being peddled by those looking to make money by encouraging potential students to think that the course is more valuable than just being a necessary step on the road to the Bar. It already is, in its own right. The professional skills learned are recognised as being transferable. However, they are not the stuff of a master's qualification.
To conclude, as I said at the beginning, this post is but a brief glimpse at the substance of the latest report on the BVC and entry to the profession. The report is, in my opinion, quite useful in that it provides actual data from which some useful findings can be drawn. Let's hope the information is put to good use, sooner rather than later...
Let's start with the number of applicants for pupillage compared with the number of pupillages available. We all know that the number of students who enrol on the BVC every year far outnumbers the number of pupillages available in the same year. For example, the report confirms that in 2006-7, 1932 students registered on the BVC, an increase on previous years. In the same year 471 pupillages were offered, a decrease on previous years. But these figures alone do not illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy between the numbers applying to the Bar and the number of pupillages available. Whilst some of those who enrol on the BVC each year will not be seeking pupillage, there are many others who have done the BVC in previous years who still are. The picture which emerges at paragraph 28 of the report is much more sobering. In the present round of OLPAS there are 294 pupillages on offer and there have been applications from 3768 individual students. That's a ratio of one pupillage per 12.8 applicants, putting the odds of success at around 8%. Now I'm not a betting girl (not often, anyway) but I wouldn't regard those odds as being particularly attractive by anybody's standards.
The report also gives us some insight into what classification of degree pupils have. Not surprisingly, year on year, the level of qualification is increasing. The report demonstrates a certain amount of wavering either way in relation to the numbers of pupils with Firsts or Upper Seconds, but each year the number of pupils with a Lower Second has decreased. Nevertheless, it is clear that a Lower Second is not a complete bar to pupillage and so the report does not suggest that an Upper Second should be a minimum pre-requisite to acceptance on the BVC.
Interestingly, the report is quite critical of the standard of spoken and written English amongst students on the BVC. This criticism is by no means reserved for overseas students for whom English is not their first language. This recognition is long overdue. It is quite appalling really that students who have obtained a degree of any description should be incapable of stringing a coherent sentence together, either orally or on paper. Mind you, some of the responsibility for this shameful state of affairs must be placed at the door of the universities who award degrees to these people, not least because it devalues the education which they themselves offer. The ability to write in an intelligible fashion ought to be an essential basic requirement at any higher education institution.
One of the most striking statements made in the report is to be found in paragraph 31 which refers to students who "do not have the innate ability necessary for success at the Bar and, even in a world in which there was greater parity between the number of students and the number of pupillages, they would not be offered a pupillage". One hopes that any aptitude test which is adopted to introduce some necessary quality control into the admission-to-the-BVC process will prevent such people getting onto the course, for their own sake as much as for anyone else's. After all, the report recognises that students who fall into this category are never likely to get a pupillage. However, there are always some who manage to slip through the net. It is important, surely, that there is also some process of ongoing re-evaluation which would enable course providers to remove those who demonstrate a complete lack of aptitude for the work of a barrister once on the course. After all, one of the major concerns expressed in the report is the extent to which the poorer students inhibit the progress and the learning experience of those who are competent to be on the course. Moreover, the fact that this report recognises that such woefully ill equipped students have been identified as being on the BVC illustrates that once those students are on the course, at present, even when it must be blatantly obvious to all except the willfully blind that they have no future in the profession for which they are being vocationally trained, the providers take no meaningful steps to do something about it.
The cost of the BVC also comes under some scrutiny. The disparity in cost between the least and most expensive providers is really quite stark. Over £4000 marks the difference between the two. That's a hell of alot of money. Good to know that as part of the re-accreditation process providers would have to give advance notice of their fees and be expected to justify them in some way (assuming the recommendations are accepted and implemented). However, whether this is just a bit of a paper tiger remains to be seen. This particular sceptic rather suspects it will be.
However, whilst it is refreshing to see some of these findings set out on paper, backed up by qualitative and quantitative data, one of the more interesting aspects of the report has to do with the issue of the BVC constituting part of a master's degree. The report refuses to be drawn into making any recommendations in this respect, suggesting that it is not a matter with which the BSB should be concerned. One paragraph, however, speaks volumes. In paragraph 34, in response to criticism that the teaching standards on the BVC are said by some to be low, it states "at least in the knowledge areas the task is to import basic information rather than analyse intellectually demanding problems". This surely demonstrates that the aims of the BVC and the aims of a master's degree are simply poles apart. The report recognises that the BVC is a professional qualification; it is vocational. A master's degree is, or at least should be, intellectually challenging, encouraging people to explore original and creative ideas in response to their subject. The notion that the BVC could constitute the substantial foundation for a master's qualification if a couple more modules are subsequently passed should be roundly rejected as simply another cynical scheme being peddled by those looking to make money by encouraging potential students to think that the course is more valuable than just being a necessary step on the road to the Bar. It already is, in its own right. The professional skills learned are recognised as being transferable. However, they are not the stuff of a master's qualification.
To conclude, as I said at the beginning, this post is but a brief glimpse at the substance of the latest report on the BVC and entry to the profession. The report is, in my opinion, quite useful in that it provides actual data from which some useful findings can be drawn. Let's hope the information is put to good use, sooner rather than later...
0 annotatio:
Post a Comment