This post follows on from a discussion on The Student Room. It is an invitation to move the debate about Oxbridge and the Bar to a more suitable location. Anyone is free to post their opinion; Violenti, as stated, I will only reply if you keep to my rules.
My position, in brief, is that an Oxbridge degree ought not to be the be all and end all for certain Chambers. However I do not believe in positive discrimination and nor am I making any claim that Chambers are actively engaged in social discrimination. My argument is that there are many ways to show potential as a barrister, academic achievement at A-Level (which is what Oxbridge is really a measure of) is only one of them. I also believe that more needs to be done to increase awareness of the Bar amongst people who would not otherwise consider it as a career; this needs to happen well before university, Chambers play a vital part in this.
For a much more in depth discussion please see Simon Myerson QC's blog post and the ensuing comments. My opinion is stated in more detail there, as are many people's rival positions.
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Sunday, 8 May 2011
Some Reflections on the Portal
The first phase of the pupillage application season has ended; I have entered the portal and emerged on the other side. Although I don't claim to have extensive pupillage application experience, I have none to be exact, and can't compare the pupillage portal with OLPAS in past years or anything before that, I will make a few comments about my experiences and opinions.
First, some advice to anyone yet to take the plunge; do it early. Although there aren't that many questions and most have a nice low word limit, you cannot underestimate the amount of time it takes to get it right. Begin your research well before the portal goes live; you can guarantee one of the questions will be 'why this Chambers?' so you may as well figure that out now. This is especially important for the slightly less prestigious Chambers whose websites can be somewhat lacking in detail; finding the key factor which differentiates them from all other Sets takes a long time if all you have to go on are the names of the members of Chambers and a few past cases.
Second, some comments on the form itself. I have seen complaints about some of these before but they bear repeating.
1. "Responsibilities / Achievements?" during mini-pupillages.
It strikes me that this is an entirely pointless question, or rather that it disguises what is a very important question. Nobody has any real responsibilities or achievements during their mini-pupillages; I hardly feel that I can count watching and occasionally taking notes as a responsibility nor talking to Counsel about the case as an achievement. Unless I am mistaken, what this question should be used for is explaining what you witnessed/learnt during your minis and how that makes you a more attractive candidate. The trouble is; either it ends up feeling like you've ignored the question or that you haven't provided any useful information. If Chambers really do want to here about my responsibilities/achievements then I suggest making the question non-compulsory, as I would have to leave it blank.
2. "Why do you believe you will make a good barrister?" /// "Please identify any experiences/skills gained that you believe may help you in your career."
These two questions already look quite similar, although as others have pointed out there are subtle differences. However, when you consider that the first question was followed by this:
"Back up your arguments with appropriate evidence (of written skills, advocacy, problem solving and organisational skills)."
It really becomes almost impossible to distinguish the two.
Is the second question intended to mean skills which will not help make me a good barrister but may help me in my career? Does this mean that I am suggesting that anything I put under the second question is not relevant to being a good barrister? I was left rather bemused by these two questions and opted to consider that the second was simply looking for evidence of skills not listed above (i.e not written skills, advocacy, problem solving or organisational skills) and so my answer focussed mainly on people skills. These two questions could certainly use clarifying/re-wording for future years.
3. Word limits.
I thought for the most part the word limits were very appropriate, although there were of course questions where I wished I could say more, they helped to tailor the application to the salient points. My one slight gripe, and it really is only a minor one, is that there are no word limits for certain sections of the form (e.g. the responsibilities/achievement section mentioned above). This just makes it difficult to know how much detail is wanted, especially where the question is as vague as it is.
On the whole though I thought the process ran quite smoothly, especially compared to some of the horror stories from past years. As far as I'm aware there were no significant crashes, I only submitted one of my applications within the last 24 hours so don't know whether it got worse after that. In any event, we were all warned about not submitting at the last minute so if it did crash we can't really pass the blame.
So that was the portal. Now, the waiting begins...
First, some advice to anyone yet to take the plunge; do it early. Although there aren't that many questions and most have a nice low word limit, you cannot underestimate the amount of time it takes to get it right. Begin your research well before the portal goes live; you can guarantee one of the questions will be 'why this Chambers?' so you may as well figure that out now. This is especially important for the slightly less prestigious Chambers whose websites can be somewhat lacking in detail; finding the key factor which differentiates them from all other Sets takes a long time if all you have to go on are the names of the members of Chambers and a few past cases.
Second, some comments on the form itself. I have seen complaints about some of these before but they bear repeating.
1. "Responsibilities / Achievements?" during mini-pupillages.
It strikes me that this is an entirely pointless question, or rather that it disguises what is a very important question. Nobody has any real responsibilities or achievements during their mini-pupillages; I hardly feel that I can count watching and occasionally taking notes as a responsibility nor talking to Counsel about the case as an achievement. Unless I am mistaken, what this question should be used for is explaining what you witnessed/learnt during your minis and how that makes you a more attractive candidate. The trouble is; either it ends up feeling like you've ignored the question or that you haven't provided any useful information. If Chambers really do want to here about my responsibilities/achievements then I suggest making the question non-compulsory, as I would have to leave it blank.
2. "Why do you believe you will make a good barrister?" /// "Please identify any experiences/skills gained that you believe may help you in your career."
These two questions already look quite similar, although as others have pointed out there are subtle differences. However, when you consider that the first question was followed by this:
"Back up your arguments with appropriate evidence (of written skills, advocacy, problem solving and organisational skills)."
It really becomes almost impossible to distinguish the two.
Is the second question intended to mean skills which will not help make me a good barrister but may help me in my career? Does this mean that I am suggesting that anything I put under the second question is not relevant to being a good barrister? I was left rather bemused by these two questions and opted to consider that the second was simply looking for evidence of skills not listed above (i.e not written skills, advocacy, problem solving or organisational skills) and so my answer focussed mainly on people skills. These two questions could certainly use clarifying/re-wording for future years.
3. Word limits.
I thought for the most part the word limits were very appropriate, although there were of course questions where I wished I could say more, they helped to tailor the application to the salient points. My one slight gripe, and it really is only a minor one, is that there are no word limits for certain sections of the form (e.g. the responsibilities/achievement section mentioned above). This just makes it difficult to know how much detail is wanted, especially where the question is as vague as it is.
On the whole though I thought the process ran quite smoothly, especially compared to some of the horror stories from past years. As far as I'm aware there were no significant crashes, I only submitted one of my applications within the last 24 hours so don't know whether it got worse after that. In any event, we were all warned about not submitting at the last minute so if it did crash we can't really pass the blame.
So that was the portal. Now, the waiting begins...
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Want a Divorce? There's an App for that...
"Divorce? delivers great legal advice and guidance for people in England and Wales who are contemplating divorce. It provides the first line of information to anyone considering divorce or separation and who wants to be better informed about the process."
It's good to know that the legal world is keeping up with the smartphone generation, all they need to do now is integrate it with this love compatibility app and we could avoid the whole messy process altogether.
Why stop there though? How about an app to determine who gets custody of the children or how the family finances are split up akin to some kind of digital magic 8 ball? Or how about Lawyerville, where you play an over ambitious ambulance chaser planting various traps around town, cracks in the pavement, faulty ladders and rogue grapes, for his litigious clients to trip over and sue?
Any other suggestions from the blogosphere?
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
There is no such thing as a black Oxford student?
David Cameron was yesterday criticised for stating that only one black student was admitted to Oxford last year; the number was in fact 41. Out of 3000 students this number is still abysmally low however the University countered by explaining that out of the whole country only 71 students from black ethnic backgrounds achieved the grades which would be required to get in. In my opinion that number is far worse.
For the last few years I've been involved in helping increase access to the UK's top universities for people from 'non-traditional backgrounds' to use the slightly odd terminology that is employed. Despite the claims by some that the lack of socio-economic diversity is caused by bias and unfair recruiting practices, anyone who has been involved with access will tell you that the problem is not with the prejudices of admissions tutors but with the prejudices of potential applicants and a school system which is failing them.
Only 50% of students at Oxford went to state schools or further education colleges (which is poor considering that only 7% of children are privately educated); however only 50% of applications came from the state sector. The drive of almost all access initiatives is to challenge the stereotypes of Oxbridge students and the myths which both school pupils and their teachers have about the application process.
The Bar in the past has been particularly good at driving diversity as it seeks to find the best talent; 50% of pupillages are now won by women and the percentage of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds exceeds their representation in the population. Socio-economic diversity however is one area in which all are still failing. Students from poor backgrounds who do not attend the best schools struggle to achieve the grades necessary to get into the top universities, irrespective of how bright in many cases they may in fact be. This then seriously limits their access to a legal profession which traditionally only recruits from those top universities.
News by Freshfields last month that it was to widen its catchment net to 'lesser' universities was unfortunately met with hostility and absolutely appalling comments by some. Expanding recruitment does not mean as some seem to think that 'stupid' people are being let in as a publicity stunt, it simply recognises that the potential of applicants is more important than their performance to date. Granted in most cases past performance is a good indicator of future success and it would be foolish to think that this expansion in recruitment will have anything more than a marginal effect on Freshfield's intake; however it is the message it sends which is important: we aren't going to write you off simply because of where you went to university.
The Bar, which is seen by most as far more elitist that most solicitors firms, would do well to take heed of this. The criminal Bar in particular, if it wants to gain any public support against the further proposed legal aid fees cuts, needs to shake a reputation of being full of the rich and privately educated who don't need to be protected from cuts to pay. Otherwise, as the Criminal Bar Association has recently noted; legal aid cuts, impacting most heavily on the junior end of the Bar, together with an increase in tuition fees and the high BPTC costs, will effectively bar poor applicants from pursuing a career at the criminal Bar as they are unable to undertake such levels of debt with only the hope of a low level of remuneration at the end of it. If the criminal Bar wants to continue to recruit from the best talent pool, changes need to be made to make it more affordable and accessible at the junior end. Access initiatives such as sending barristers into schools need to become more widespread and legal aid reform needs to be approached in a way which does not harm the junior Bar. Wealth and circumstance of birth should Bar None.
For the last few years I've been involved in helping increase access to the UK's top universities for people from 'non-traditional backgrounds' to use the slightly odd terminology that is employed. Despite the claims by some that the lack of socio-economic diversity is caused by bias and unfair recruiting practices, anyone who has been involved with access will tell you that the problem is not with the prejudices of admissions tutors but with the prejudices of potential applicants and a school system which is failing them.
Only 50% of students at Oxford went to state schools or further education colleges (which is poor considering that only 7% of children are privately educated); however only 50% of applications came from the state sector. The drive of almost all access initiatives is to challenge the stereotypes of Oxbridge students and the myths which both school pupils and their teachers have about the application process.
The Bar in the past has been particularly good at driving diversity as it seeks to find the best talent; 50% of pupillages are now won by women and the percentage of pupils from ethnic minority backgrounds exceeds their representation in the population. Socio-economic diversity however is one area in which all are still failing. Students from poor backgrounds who do not attend the best schools struggle to achieve the grades necessary to get into the top universities, irrespective of how bright in many cases they may in fact be. This then seriously limits their access to a legal profession which traditionally only recruits from those top universities.
News by Freshfields last month that it was to widen its catchment net to 'lesser' universities was unfortunately met with hostility and absolutely appalling comments by some. Expanding recruitment does not mean as some seem to think that 'stupid' people are being let in as a publicity stunt, it simply recognises that the potential of applicants is more important than their performance to date. Granted in most cases past performance is a good indicator of future success and it would be foolish to think that this expansion in recruitment will have anything more than a marginal effect on Freshfield's intake; however it is the message it sends which is important: we aren't going to write you off simply because of where you went to university.
The Bar, which is seen by most as far more elitist that most solicitors firms, would do well to take heed of this. The criminal Bar in particular, if it wants to gain any public support against the further proposed legal aid fees cuts, needs to shake a reputation of being full of the rich and privately educated who don't need to be protected from cuts to pay. Otherwise, as the Criminal Bar Association has recently noted; legal aid cuts, impacting most heavily on the junior end of the Bar, together with an increase in tuition fees and the high BPTC costs, will effectively bar poor applicants from pursuing a career at the criminal Bar as they are unable to undertake such levels of debt with only the hope of a low level of remuneration at the end of it. If the criminal Bar wants to continue to recruit from the best talent pool, changes need to be made to make it more affordable and accessible at the junior end. Access initiatives such as sending barristers into schools need to become more widespread and legal aid reform needs to be approached in a way which does not harm the junior Bar. Wealth and circumstance of birth should Bar None.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
Bar None Blawg
Yesterday I accepted my place on the BPTC at the College of Law and so today I have decided to start writing a blog.
Firstly because it seems like a good distraction from the growing mountains of finals revision, and secondly because I have no money left to go out and enjoy myself having just waived goodbye to £350 for the privilege of securing my place on the aforementioned course.
If anybody ever does read this then hopefully the tales of my successes and failures (probably mostly failures) over the next year (and beyond?) will be useful to you. If not then at least you can enjoy some highbrow humour; like this fantastic headline.
So, to those of you who have already made as barristers; help?
To those of you who are still many years away and are considering starting down this path of work, depression, work, (brief period of free booze, food and merchandise being thrown at you by solicitors firms before they realise you're not interested in them) and then more work; good luck!
And to those of you at the same stage as myself with finals looming, BPTC booked and the search for pupillage about to begin.....race you to the bar?
Firstly because it seems like a good distraction from the growing mountains of finals revision, and secondly because I have no money left to go out and enjoy myself having just waived goodbye to £350 for the privilege of securing my place on the aforementioned course.
If anybody ever does read this then hopefully the tales of my successes and failures (probably mostly failures) over the next year (and beyond?) will be useful to you. If not then at least you can enjoy some highbrow humour; like this fantastic headline.
So, to those of you who have already made as barristers; help?
To those of you who are still many years away and are considering starting down this path of work, depression, work, (brief period of free booze, food and merchandise being thrown at you by solicitors firms before they realise you're not interested in them) and then more work; good luck!
And to those of you at the same stage as myself with finals looming, BPTC booked and the search for pupillage about to begin.....race you to the bar?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)