Does school mean smart? – the profession should decide which side of the fence it sits on with social mobility

Coalition Proposals Will Enhance Access to and Quality of Legal Education Long-Term

I completely agree that there is far more than good academics to being the best kind of commercial lawyer.

I don't accept that there's any real evidence to suggest that Coalition's proposals for higher education funding will worsen the quality or impede access to a solid legal education, though.

First, the cost of their post-grad study isn't a factor for most lawyers, whose costs are paid for by the firms at which they train. Second, widespread grant funding has only been available to students since the Education Act 1962. Third, don't forget the National Scholarships Programme and diversity initiatives mandated from universitities charging over £6,000 per year.

What I think is more realistic to expect is a move in the UK toward the US higher education model and all the diversity that comes with it: commmunity and independent colleges, religiously-affiliated colleges, big state and regional universities and small liberal arts colleges.

I think this can only be a good thing. Generally, diversity like this results in increased competition, the knock-on effect of which is better quality. US institutions have varying fee structures, and the least expensive institutions are very often first rate.

Unconventional In the City -07 Apr 2011 | 17:33

Clegg himself is proof positive that connections and schooling can lead to even the most mediocre of individuals achieving good paper qualifications and then moving on to prestigious positions.

Anon -08 Apr 2011 | 15:39

@ Anon -08 Apr 2011 | 15:39 - that's not entirely fair, Clegg does excel at some things e.g. vacuity, superficiality, mediocrity, duplicity, inconsistency.

Stephen -08 Apr 2011 | 16:41

Why should the legal profession have to struggle to compensate for the inequities of the UK's educational system?

Why should any profession or university for that matter?

The issue is a simple one: state education in the UK needs to be radically reformed and improved.

The problem is that no political party is willing to seriously take on the teaching unions and the educational establishment.

So instead of rectifying the supply problem, politicians want to try to gerrymander the demand side of the equation by forcing employers to recruit inadequately educated people in the name of 'fairness'.

And the rest of the world is looking on in disbelief and amusement. The longer this debacle continues the more ground the UK loses against China, India, South Korea, Germany, Finland etc, places where academic excellence, competition and selection are not dirty words.

To my mind the UK faces a very bleak future as the shortcomings of its educational system become ever more obvious to the rest of the world.

Wee Willy Winky -09 Apr 2011 | 18:49

Hmmmm

"Academic performance is important and certainly should be taken seriously by employers, but in many cases, in many careers, its importance is overstated"

Alex - when I made this point on another thread (I think that one was on Oxbridge entry) I believe you called me an "overly sensitive soul" in your follow-up!

Glad that you've changed your tune.

Magic Circle Associate -10 Apr 2011 | 23:09

Educational deficiencies?

"Why should the legal profession have to struggle to compensate for the inequities of the UK's educational system?"

It isn't and it doesn't have to. There are as many state school pupils at Oxbridge as there are private school pupils. Given the difference in educational standards that would suggest the state schoolers there are brighter, more hard-working and more determined than the private schoolers who get their place on a plate.

So logically recruitment at the MC, for example, ought at least to be equal between state and private. Ditto the Bar.

So why isn't it? Why does an MC recruiter refuse to give details of from where they recruit?

It's jobs for the boys. Law isn't difficult; business development is down to brand name rather than individuals in most cases as well. So if you get into the "brand" you're set up for life. Which means that those who are there now can choose who will be there next - and that's where the oligarchy steps in. Daddy will make sure little Tristans and Isoldas will get their step-up and keep the oiks out.

Scep Tick -11 Apr 2011 | 10:01

To Magic Circle Associate – that was written by a different Alex - I’ve always believed educational outcomes are strongly linked to privilege and, largely for that reason, too much is made of narrow academic achievement by employers, so my tune remains boringly unchanged.

To Wee Willy – I’m not aware of the Government “forcing” employers to hire inadequately educated staff, though I agree entirely that much of the problem rests with the toleration of poor education for swathes of UK society.

Alex Novarese -11 Apr 2011 | 11:44

Academics are a reasonable measure of the relevant skill

I would suggest that legal practice, particularly contractual, is dependent on writing grammatically correct prose to achieve a technical outcome. This is more important as a skill for the majority of lawyers than street smarts, gut instinct, or raw unpolished intelligence. Whilst it would be better to have high intelligence too, being literate is more important. Or to express it a different way, taking a less polished candidate has the potential to increase both the investment in training required and the risk that such training is unsuccessful. For law firms to want to take such candidates (other than for appearances sake) the pay off for taking that risk should be great enough to outweigh the risk of failure. I’d suggest there are other careers suit that gamble better, both for the individual and the employer.

Accordingly, however out of touch with the zeitgeist I may be, I think it entirely reasonable for law firms to recruit individuals who are able to demonstrate literacy and academics are a reasonable measure. That is of course if you accept my view that the acquired skill is more important than innate ability. There are other careers that better suit raw unpolished intelligence.

That said, I do not see using academics as a measure of ability as jobs for the boys or a class issue though. The ethical issue here should be one of stimulating social mobility through access to education, rather than by preventing employers from assessing ability through academics.

Stupot -11 Apr 2011 | 13:14

First Year Bias

I think academic grades at degree level are a good indication of ability and should continue to be used. However, I believe it takes a while for state school pupils to adjust to the rigours of university and that law firms should respect this.

Having been to a state comprehensive where I got 3 As at A-level on three-and-a-half hours a day (that's less than 18 hrs a week), it was somewhat of a shock to discover I actually had to work at degree level. My first year grades were sub-par - not only because my university, Durham, decided to mark harshly in the first year (a practise which stopped the following year), but because I had very little experience of the method of working, or advice from family members. After working hard in the second year; I went from the top of the bottom third to the bottom of the top third in rankings (from 135 out of 200 - 60 out of 193).

Unfortunately, my first year grades are held against me when I apply for law related jobs. I therefore am planning to look for employment outside the legal sector where first year grades are not so important.

I find it annoying that this phenomenon exists in addition to the ridiculous degree of nepotism within the profession. And what really irritates me is when employers launch schemes putting ethnic or gender diversity on a par with socio-economic diversity - a black woman who has been to a top public school such as Rugby is in no way as disadvantaged as someone who has been to a comprehensive school. I suppose it is the fact that they make the workplace appear more obviously diverse that counts for such schemes - indeed such schemes sum up many firm's attitude to diversity - a skin-deep interest which only matters insofar as it exists in their customer's perceptions.

Luke -13 Apr 2011 | 12:50

State/Private

I entirely agree with Willy Winky, it should not be a case of dropping standards for those from certain backgrounds/minorities, it should be a case of raising the standards of teaching for those that typically underachieve. Parachuting badly educated students into privileged positions seems a convenient way for the government to sidestep its duty to educate all sections of society to a decent standard.

Besides, the generalisations made about state schools and private/public schools are entirely artificial. There are many state run schools that receive far more funding than their private school counterparts (most private schools are not the stereotypical public school image) and consistently achieve higher pass marks for their pupils. The state/private label is therefore not a particularly useful one, and there should certainly not be any advantage given to those that are state educated based on such crude assumptions.

Flashy -13 Apr 2011 | 18:16

Missing the point...

...as Oxbridge takes in roughly 50/50 between state and private education, it's evident that there are as many state pupils able to do the job as private pupils. Yet law is dominated by private pupils. That’s nothing at all to do with ability. That’s everything to do with social engineering. Those in positions of power now are ensuring 'their kind' carry the torch. Law is not difficult; the MC keep where they are because of brand, rather than legal, power.

Scep Tick -14 Apr 2011 | 09:03

Is the law degree valued?

A nicely written piece Alex. It is a shame that more legal professionals do not share your views. The question I would like to ask is: Is the law degree the best route into law really? Luke touched on the 'first year bias' and as a student (studying at Manchester) I would like to agree with him. The law school is looking to 'weed out' any uncommitted students who may have 'slipped through the net' in the first year. Law exams are memory tests and do not illuminate talent in my opinion.

Academic achievement is always an important commodity when it comes to the recruitment of any individual for any job but the current does discriminate against state school students. I am in the privileged position of having attended, both, a private boarding school and a state school. There is an overwhelming difference between the two. For nearly 30k a year, you are (if good enough) exposed to an array of opportunity. For example, I played rugby and cricket for Lancashire; represented the North West in Athletics and had the opportunity to study subjects like Latin and Greek. Just before my GCSE's there was a bereavement in my family and I went to the local state school. The teaching was years behind my previous school and the opportunities had all of sudden vanished. The huge divide came down to one thing 'Money'(Your parents have it or they don't)

After a few years of 'climbing the ladder with no degree' I have returned to education to study law. However, something has bewildered me in my research of law recruitment and I would be grateful if anyone can shed some light on this for me, how is African studies possibly of the same 'ilk' as an LLB law degree? How is a student, who has averaged a 2:1 in African studies, competing with a law student averaging a 2:1 in Law? I was inclined to think this was the law sector showing its 'diversity at work'; nonetheless, the student studying African studies went to Cambridge and had 'influential' parents.

I think law firms should be careful about what message they send out to students. '38% of Magic Circle firms are occupied by Oxbridge' is a figure branded about and with examples like these it is no wonder that students are starting to hedge their bets on regional firms for a Training Contracts rather than the pursue the 'elitist magic circle dream'. He debate on social mobility is going to continue...

I think lawyers require more than just a good memory and wealthy parents but I'm not recruiting the future of the profession.

Owen -07 May 2011 | 12:09

Dominated by public schools?

I'm not sure why a couple of people are saying that law is dominated by private schools. The only report I've seen on this, in Legal Week in 2010, said that 38% of magic circle trainees came from private schools. That's way more than the general population, but less than Oxbridge, and certainly not "dominated".

Marc Daniels -07 May 2011 | 21:23

No...

...that survey said 38% of MC trainees were Oxbridge, NOT private.

The survey did however show that 71% of MC partners under 39 were privately educated. Which is a much, much higher than Oxbridge's private intake.

Jobs for the boys.

Scep Tick -09 May 2011 | 16:05

Alex is spot on...

Law firms are not really interested in diversity and social mobility. Problem is they don't have the guts to admit it because they would be accused of discrimination.

Why do I think Alex is correct? Well, I am from a working class background but was lucky to train at a top 35 firm in the region (after working with them for a number of years) and worked at a top 25 firm again in the region for three years. On making recent applications to top ten firms in the City via recruitment agents I've been told these firms are only looking for MC, SC, US or top 10 candidates? On checking with firms I'm told that's not the case. I think having had their hands forced to some degree at traineeship level these same firms are continuing with their discriminatory policies at other stages of the hiring process. Having a 2.1 from oxbridge in drama or some other naff subject is hardly indicative of talent or ability. Just check out ads with agents - surely the criteria at 2pqe+ should not be MC!

I suspect at some level these toffs are scared that if they did recruit on merit and real ability there won't be room left for their offspring. Thanks for raising the issue Alex...

Maryam -11 Sep 2011 | 15:46

This is an interesting debate. As a partner, I have interviewed graduates in England and in continental Europe.

In continental Europe, the emphasis on academic results is astonishing. I have seen people being grilled in interviews on the details of irrelevant laws and have been failed on the grounds they didn't "know the law".

In England this is not the case. It is true that academic background forms tends to be the focus for the initial application ie there are many rejections based solely on "poor" academic results. This is not the sole criteria but it is probably deemed to be the most important by HR departments. However, there has to be some criteria to get an interview in the first place, and academics is, in theory, the most objective.

The point made in the article is broadly correct. For the most part being a lawyer is not a difficult job. Similarly a law degree is not a particularly difficult degree. Being a lawyer (perhaps excluding the top of the commercial bar) does not require great academic prowess. What law requires is the ability to think of an answer that does not appear immediately in the text book, to be highly organised, have a good memory for the various points raised at the silly hours in the morning, and to do what is required quickly. Many candidates (more than you would imagine) do not seem to be able to respond to questions in interviews in a way that suggests they are able to think laterally. This is also apparent in many of the candidates that actually become trainees. Whether this is the product of the current education system I do not know. (Just to be clear I am not saying that what lawyers do day-in day-out is to create clever new answers to problems, but even a simple negotiation requires thinking along these lines.)

The difference between responses from candidates in England compared to Europe in relation to many interview questions is quite marked. Universities (and I assume some schools) in the UK tend to put a lot of time into coaching candidates on interview technique (whereas this seems to be lacking in Europe). I think this plays a large part in who gets the job in the UK. This is where the problem arises. Unless the interviewer asks the right questions (which often they do not because most law firms use lawyers as interviewers and we tend to be given an hour or two of interview training before being let loose with all the lack of approach and consistency that brings), candidates can breeze through an interview appearing to be a star performer. The "better" universities and schools are likely to invest more time in these skills than others with the result that candidates appear more polished and are therefore more likely to be offered a job.

I therefore think that the combination of (1) the gateway to an interview being academic results and (2) the lack of a searching interview process, skews the chances in favour of a public school or Oxbridge candidate being given the job. I don't believe that (in most cases) this is purposeful bias. However, it seems to me that unless number (2) is addressed then trying to aid social mobility is a fruitless task because there is a high chance that (excluding any positive bias within a firm's recruitment policy towards actually employing such candidates rather than just interviewing them) these candidates will fail the "polished performance" test.

Clearly trying to target candidates from different backgrounds is a good idea but they need to be tested against the same benchmark (in terms of potential to be a good lawyer) as those from public schools and top universities. There should not be positive bias towards such candidates solely in the name of social mobility. So, what is the answer? I don't know, but I think changing the way recruitment works within a law firm and in particular the interviewers is probably a good start.

James -12 Sep 2011 | 19:58