Students will be able to turn their Bar Vocational Course (BVC) into a Masters degree under new proposals to widen access to the Bar, in one of 57 proposals unveiled in Lord Neuberger’s report today (27 November).
The proposals, which have been announced a month earlier than expected, would allow students who do not secure a pupillage to turn their BVC into a Masters.
Other significant proposals include allowing applicants to know whether they have attained a pupillage before applying for the BVC and introducing a standardised course examination.
The recommendations will now go to the Bar Council, which will decide which measures to introduce and how.
Although Neuberger’s working party did not decide to limit the numbers of BVC places available, it did recommend investigations into the feasibility and impact of a 2:1 minimum entry requirement and the possibility of a competency test.
The report also suggests BVC providers should implement an English language test if English is not a student’s first language.
Another proposal is that the Bar Council sets up a ‘clearing house system’ to ensure all available pupillage vacancies are filled as well as trying to generate more employed pupillages.
Part-time pupillages are among a number of suggestions that attempt to allow pupils to work at the same time as doing their pupillage.
Students may also be able to secure cheaper loans to fund their BVC, with proposals to allow preferential rates from banks. This would work alongside the Inns’ scholarship and awards schemes.
In addition, all barristers involved in selecting pupils and tenants will be required to be trained in non-discriminatory selection procedures to avoid any ‘unconscious bias’ which could exist.
Modern initiatives focused on school children and university students include the creation of a DVD and podcasts.
Lord Neuberger commented: “I would be very surprised and disappointed if the proposals, when implemented, did not significantly increase the number of able people from disadvantaged backgrounds who will seriously consider, and indeed pursue, the Bar as a career”
He added: “This report will not produce headline grabbing news, just a collection of practical and sensible ideas. Not all of them may make a big difference on their own, but I believe and hope that, collectively, they will bring about significant change.”
The working party has suggested that the Bar Council create an Access Monitoring Group to ensure progress is made in implementing the recommendations and to report twice a year to monitor the situation and make further recommendations.
Commenting on the report, Old Square Chambers senior clerk John Taylor said: “Increasing the information available about the Bar to school children is an excellent idea to try and increase diversity among the profession. The Bar has come a long way, but it needed to; there is still a lot more that could be done to open it up and this is a really good starting point.”
Essex Court Chambers senior clerk David Grief added: “To have a general examination across the BVC providers overseen by the Bar Council seems like a good idea in terms of setting a high national standard. It is a matter of being fair to the candidates and not giving anyone false hopes.
“Part time pupillages are favourable and we already offer these to academics who cannot take a whole year out. This could increase diversity and, at the end of the day, even if it does take twice as long one still comes out with the same end result while facilitating a person's other commitments.”
Talkback: Revolution or damp squib? Will Neuberger's report make a difference? Click here to have your say.
Editors' Blog: "Neuberger and access: squaring that circle"
Legal Week Student
Barristers are not interested in widening the intake to include ethnic minorities - if they were, they would do just that. Instead they have to be coerced into it by a third party "Nanny". This plus the somewhat truthful stereotype of the money-sucking, upper-class barrister does not attract many students. Instead Neuberger talks about middle classes and lower classes, 2:1 and 2:2 degrees, tightening up the examination process while ignoring the GLARING racial, financial means and status divide. Being a barrister will never attract the top minds because being a barrister just isnt cool enough. The pinstripe suits, the wigs (formerly) the stereotype as stated above, 'No thanks', say the younger generation.
I commend Lord Neuberger for the work he has done. This is a sensible, well-worked through set of proposals, with wide-reaching implications for BVC providers, law students and the wider Bar alike. The will of the BSB to implement Neuberger will be a key test for the fledgling body and I would expect Ruth Evans and Charles Hollander QC to allot this a high priority.
Special mention should be made of Sophie Shotton's work on this report; her leadership of the Young Barristers Committee has taken what was, five years ago, a fairly supine body into one which is listened to by the Bar Council and BSB alike, by taking policy as seriously as advocacy.
I dont see any point in supposedly raising the level to a 2.1. What separates a 2.1 from a 2.2 is basically a difference of a few points. What is more important is the personality, experience and motivation of the candidate. The BVC should be open to only those who have secured pupillage in the UK or abroad. The BVC consists of modules that are fit for practise at the Bar and there are no modules that deal with (for example) the drafting of a share purchase agreement or corporate financing. There should be more diversity at the Bar, recruitment should be based on the all-round personality and not simply taking any Oxbridge graduate who got a 2.1 in History or Languages. A degree (from the Rusell Group of Universities) in History and the CPE doesnt make them more competent than an LLB holder. Its not only unfair but discriminatory!
It seems like rather a brilliant ruse when providers can take many times the number of students than professional places available. Although those involved have a choice, pupillage and tenancy places have fallen drastically. Congratulations to providers such as BPP Holdings plc who announced "strong revenue growth" and state "In the six months to 30 June 2007, revenue increased by 15.3% to £71.6m (2006: £62.1m)". Sadly many post-BVC students may not share this upbeat point of view. Many sets of chambers do not want to be saddled with the financial burden of paying a pupil. For the paltry sums on offer by many sets it would be a far better idea for paid pupillages to be abolished, thus opening up the chances for those who have completed their BVC to gain tenancy on merit. Strong academics do not skillful and sensitive advocates make. Restrict access to the courses and open the opportunities for those completing them. Lord Neuberger has shied away from a chance to do the right thing.
2:1 degrees vary greatly. There are students who just miss getting a first and students who just manage a 2:1 and yet, at the degree ceremony, they all appear to be the same. In any event, the universities are now questioning this method of awarding degrees.
Too many Chambers favouring Oxbridge students. Until that stops, it won't change.
Anyone who wants to study for the BVC should sit for an oral English language test. There are so many nationalities that speak some kind of broken English that one would doubt their competence. Yet these same bvc students passed their BVC with flying colours. The reason as to why so many foreign students do their BVC in the uk is because their local version is a lot tougher and they have to compete with excellent local law graduates in their country. Here in the UK, BVC providers are keener to take their money and let them pass even on a borderline basis. Deferral of call should have been upheld. The BVC certificate is only valuable to foreign students and not those in the Uk who failed to secure pupillage. Also I don’t see any point in admitting those with a 2.1 only because each university has its own grading process and their own interpretation of marking. Either you can interpret the law accurately or you can’t. Do you think a Judge will ask a prosecuting counsel whether he got a 2.1 or a 3rd before he gives his verdict in court? On the other side of the profession, solicitor firms are increasing diversity in terms of recruitment. More “non-russell group” university graduates are being considered. Leading magic circle firms are no longer focussing recruitment on 2.1 holders because now they have realised (well a bit too late) that work experience, maturity, language skills and devotion to work long hours is more far more important that a 2.1.
Like the solicitors' profession, there is a class-ceiling preventing access to the barristers' profession in England and Wales. The government of New Labour (or should that be New Conservatives?) have failed to introduce legislation that would prevent the lower social classes in our society gaining equal access to these two legal professions, a fortiori, the barristers' profession. It's time that barristers' and their self-protecting Bar Council stopped acting like the dockers' trade unions of old. Before the Thatcher government's reforms took place, dockers would reserve dock jobs for their sons and grandsons. The barristers have been doing this for centuries - its time to bar this outdated industrial practice.
I wonder if any decision to make the BVC into a masters will be applied retrospectively. I think that would be a great idea and the intensity of the course would certainly merit such recognition.
As for the comment that barristers are not cool enough I have to disagree. Most clients still appreciate the mystique and independence of the Bar. A lot of barristers rely on this smoke and mirrors to stay in business.
Many of the comments I have read here attack Neuberger's suggestion of a minimum 2.1 requirement by saying that some 2.1 candidates may have just missed out on a 1st whereas some may have only scraped above a 2.2. I find this arguement fruitless because at some point, somewhere along the line, candidates HAVE to be examined and graded. Those who achieve a 1st are generally more able in the subject than those who get a 3rd, there is nothing wrong with saying that. The 2.1 minumum requirement suggested by Neuberger is simply an attempt to filter out the less able candidates. Barristers, ahead of any other skill, have to be good lawyers and a mimimum entry level requirement would help ensure that. How would a minimum entry requirement for LLB candidates translate to mimimum CPPE/PgD grading? Answers on a postcard please...
James let me give you an example before I send my postcard. It’s easier to get a 2.1 from Oxbridge in Languages than a 2.1 in Laws from a non-Oxbridge university. Studying for an LLB (bachelor of laws) on a 3-year full time course is not the equivalent to an Oxbridge course in Languages. It does not make sense to offer pupillage to an Oxbridge graduate with a 2.1 in Languages who carved out by completing an easy CPE course and reject a 2.1 LLB honours graduate just for the sake that he is not from Oxbridge. Some LLB students missed out on a 2.1 by a few marks in subjects, which were taken as options, and not compulsory ones but it was pure law subjects. Its pointless to raise the level to a 2.1 for all graduates irrespective of whether it’s a full time LLB or a dodgy BA (bachelor of arts) in Languages/History from Oxbridge. How many barristers received pupillage offers with BA from Oxbridge? Well a lot. We cannot just blindly accept any BA from Oxbridge just for the sake that they are from Oxbridge. Grading should be more severe at the level of the barrister course but not at Bachelor level. It is only during the bar course on criminal advocacy that the tutor will know that this student is capable of thinking on his feet and has good judgment call. At the Bachelor level there are subjects that are totally irrelevant for practising at the bar thus pointless in raising the level to a 2.1. The Neuberger report is out of touch with the current situation.
I can see what you are saying but you have yet to mention CPE grading, which was my point. I'm sure you are aware that the CPE is for non-law graduates. My point is/was that the minimum requirement to get on to the CPE for most providers is a 2.2 (as far as I am aware). The CPE is not graded as a degree is, simply because it is not a degree, it is a diploma. You can receive either a pass, commendation or outstanding. Does Neuberger suggest that the minimum requirement for those taking the “law conversion route” is: 1) Both a 2.1 non-law degree followed by the equivalent of a 2.1 which is 60+% (Commendation) on the CPE/PGD? OR 2) is he saying that you can get onto the BVC with a 2.2 as long as you have been awarded Commendation (2.1 equivalent) on the CPE/PGD? (Ps. through the mill long ago, curious what those who follow will have to do)
More qualifications, more money to spend on qualifications that prove to be worthless. Our son read PPE at Sheffield and obtained a 2.1. Then we paid for him to do a law degree at Manchester then his BVC also at Manchester. He obtained a good HC. He was called to the bar at Lincoln's Inn - what a waste of time that was - now three years and numerous interviews later he has left for Hong Kong! He was working for an advocacy agency in the UK but his dream was to practice as a qualified barrister. I wish we had been told beforehand that he had no chance! His was an impossible and expensive dream for us and him.(circa £40K), He just doesn't have the correct background, I'm afraid! Non-public school, non-Oxbridge! Just an excellent advocate with all the experience and working class skills to offer to a profession that is by and large an old boy's club/closed shop.
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
