Law and the myth of social mobility

Author: Alex Novarese

24 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Having remarked last week that gender politics engages the legal profession like no other issue, former cabinet minister Alan Milburn (pictured) popped up on Tuesday (21 July) to prove me wrong with the publication of a report on social mobility and the professions, which concluded that the law, alongside other popular professions, is dogged by a persistent lack of social mobility.

To some this is news. That is strange. Virtually every study of these issues in the UK over the last 20 years - and there have been a lot - have concluded that social mobility is going backwards in the UK after a golden era in the 1960s and 70s. Being born to relative privilege has a massive and unquestioned link to future opportunities that has been proven beyond any point of statistical debate.

Does the legal profession have particular cause for concern? The basic fact remains that law, like medicine, is built on a foundation of structured academic learning, followed by equally structured vocational training. As such, law is not well equipped to overcome the weaknesses of the UK's educational system. Interestingly, Milburn's report also notes that the number of independently-schooled solicitors has fallen since the late 1980s, so on that yardstick there has been some progress. There is also the issue that law has a very structured career track, with clearly defined routes in, making it one of the more transparent of the aspirational careers.

There is an interesting comparison to journalism, which the report notes has moved from being one of the most socially inclusive careers to become considerably more privileged over the last 20 years. The report concludes that journalism is the only career ion which the proportion of staff educated at independent schools has gone up (it was static or had fallen for all other professions, even for judges). There was also the hilarity of seeing one newspaper covering the report refer to journalism as a "former trade", as if it had been transformed through the infusion of the privileged classes into an actual profession; my chosen trade has far more to be ashamed of regarding social mobility than law.

What the legal profession can do boils down to two things. One is try to give kids from less privileged backgrounds an insight into the profession to at least put it on their radar. Allen & Overy has recently made a laudable effort in this regard with its Smart Start scheme, which introduced over 100 sixth-form students to a major law firm. There is some value to that. Growing up in the grimmer parts of the UK, there are a shortage of people to give children a sense of possibility or ambition. Most would never think of a career in law because it's outside their frame of reference.

The other part of the equation - the bigger part probably - would require law firms to adjust their recruitment policies to screen for intellectual aptitude alongside pure academics. Since there's a raging debate about how you achieve that, and it is far more work-intensive than just filling your quota with firsts and 2.1s from the Russell Group, that will take quite a commitment. Some firms, notably Norton Rose, have at least indicated a willingness to explore such a move.

That doesn't change the conclusion that an intensely competitive career such as law which requires excellent academics is never going to be at the sharp end of tackling social inclusion. But such efforts by the legal profession remain laudable and probably more necessary than ever in a country losing the mobility battle.

COMMENTS (TOTAL 7 COMMENTS)

As a fortunate graduate from a grammar school background (working class and financially poor parents) I was able to secure a career path which was not open to my two older brothers who (whilst at least as clever as me - but perhaps not so studious) were consigned to so called "non-professional" careers.

Having secured partnership in my 30s as a parent and having moved from London to Liverpool I am acutely aware of the significant demise of the grammar school system and the great difficulty facing parents and students in a two-tier system where those who can pay for private education face a much easier path to good universities and the profession than their comprehensive peer group. That is not to say going to a comprehensive prevents qualifying into the law - but from my own experience both in my legal career and as a parent - it is a lot harder. I am fortunate to be able to pay school fees, which probably proves the point that if I could not then my children would probably be reliant on comprehensive education.

With this demise of opportunity goes the reduction in social mobility, which sadly is unlikely to change and the assistance provided by law firms may be of great benefit, although there will be inevitable concern with 'positive discrimination'.

Socially Mobile Partner -24 Jul 2009 | 01:00

I think a big part of the social mobility/access issue for the legal profession is the institutionalised discrimination against students who cannot study full-time for financial reasons and must study on a part-time basis so they can continue to work. Firstly, because UK universities and GDL/LPC providers are geared towards full-time students and there are limited opportunities for evening/long-distance study (certainly none on a full-time basis, which would be easily feasible). There is a whole mentality that studying and working at the same time is excessively taxing or impossible that you simply don't see in other countries. Secondly, because part-time students don't easily fit the mould of the typical training contract or pupillage applicant and law firms/chambers appear to strongly prefer more 'standard' applicants. And thirdly, because the SRA rules heavily penalise part-time students who do manage to get a training contract -there can be no objective justification for doubling up the training time required if the trainee is still studying. Overall, if the individual can't afford to study full-time then there are very serious obstacles to qualifying.

Karin -24 Jul 2009 | 01:00

This debate has to be one of the most dishonest to have ever taken place in British politics.

NuLabour would like everyone to think that the contiguity of the golden age of social mobility which Milburn refers to and the existence of the grammar school system is nothing more than coincidence. This is to treat the populace as if they are fools.

It is clear for all to see that the comprehensive schooling experiment has been a disaster. Equally destructive has been the malign influence of the teaching unions - Milburn remarks on the edge that doing competitive sport at school gives pupils at private schools and yet fails to comment on the fact that competitive sport in state schools disappeared because the 'progressive' teaching methods beloved of the NUT looked askance at anything that smacked of competition.

My father left school at 16 and was a card carrying union member. He worked hard to send me to a private school because Crossland's education reforms had destroyed decent state education in the area where I grew up. From there I went on to an 'elite' university and a City law firm. Am I a creature of entrenched elite privilege or an example of social mobility? Who know - and frankly who cares as crude class categorisation of this type is of no help in actually resolving this issue.

We should call a spade a spade - if the 'professions' are becoming more 'elite' then it is because of the inadequacies of the state education system. The rest is window dressing. What idiots we were to believe Blair's mantra of "education, education, education'. Milburn et al should stop trying to gerrymander the demand side of the equation - the problem is on the supply side. Alas Labour are trapped within an ideology that will never allow them to do this.

Tired and emotional -27 Jul 2009 | 01:00

The following statement appears borderline delusional to me:

"Law has a very structured career track, with clearly defined routes in, making it one of the more transparent of the aspirational careers".

In what way can the legal career track - particularly the arcane rigmarole involved in establishing oneself as a barrister - possibly be described as "transparent" or "structured" relative to the track in medicine or any other "aspirational" career (whatever those are)? I submit that, save in the darkest tones of irony, it cannot.

Leisure Suit Larry -28 Jul 2009 | 01:00

It's ironic that post-war governments Left and Right have presided over the destruction of state grammars, the only real engine for social mobility this country ever had.

As a post-war grammar school boy I well remember the contempt we held for our so-called betters. The ones who lost an empire and almost a world war.

One day things would be different.

They weren't and the Old Gang are firmly back in the saddle.

It will take a real revolution next time....

Old Geezer -28 Jul 2009 | 01:00

Yep, it's all the legal profession's fault. Maybe it could be less snobby about what university somebody went to and whether they had a straight path to the law, rather than doing other things along the way. However, to me there are obvious solutions - bring back grammar schools and vocational schools (with proper flexibility to move between the two) and reintroduce full grants and free tuition fees for a first degree. I went to a state grammar school and benefited from a full grant at university. So did a lot of MPs, but they still saw fit to take it away from today's youngsters.

Helen -30 Jul 2009 | 01:00

I think this should also be considered in light of the recent Law Society announcement that it is to launch a campaign to warn students about embarking on a legal career - see the article at http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/1495476/lawsoc-warns-students-pitfalls-path-legal-profession. They are in particular warning of the financial risks of a legal education versus decreasing numbers of training contracts. How is this likely to affect social mobility I wonder?

If you take a look at trainee solicitor discussion forum sites you will see that entering the legal profession seems to be becoming harder and more expensive.

Old Greg -12 Aug 2009 | 01:00

Post Comment

RELATED JOBS

Post Events	Legal Week daily news alert
Post	In-house weekly news briefing	Sign up

Law and the myth of social mobility

Subscribe now