I want to become a Solicitor. Can it happen?

Nicki

I agree to an extent SaeEl, though the way OU structures its learning means there is less independent study involved and more spoon-feeding, so it is not necessarily the best learning experience for a lawyer.

However the point of my post was to make the OP aware that it would be difficult to enter the profession with an OU degree, whatever the reason, so if becoming a solicitor is what he genuinely wants to do, he would be much better off studying elsewhere and giving himself a decent chance of getting a training contract at the end of the day. My own view in the circumstances he has posted and in particular his need to earn while he studies that he'd be far better off going the ILEX route. Also not prestigious or a silver spoon way to enter the profession but one with a much greater likelihood of success.

PS - I don't come from a silver spoon background either but was lucky enough to study at degree level somewhere acceptable to recruiters and so they overlooked my lack of class

Oldernotwiser

Nicki wrote: »

OK. I am speaking from the vantage point of someone who IS a qualified solicitor, and whose firm would not even have offered an interview to anyone who had an OU or degree from a not well respected university, much less a training contract. And from the vantage point of someone who received a lot of questions from parents of students who had gone to lesser universities and got such degrees, but not succeeded in securing contracts and were asking why. And this was 10 years ago when training contracts were plentiful, whereas these days even the major law firms are cancelling offers or deferring them, and there are just less places.
.

The mistake you're making is in not considering the OU to be a "well respected university" and including it in with the worst of the old Polys. As far as spoon feeding goes, I think that you're comparing this with a university education from times gone by - almost all universities have to spoon feed students these days, educational standards have been dumbed down so much.

Nicki

No I am remembering the recruitment process when I was working in the legal profession.

I am studying psychology at Birkbeck in the evenings. I have compared the BIrkbeck materials and way of study with the OU for the same subject. Birkbeck and most good universities expect you to go to the original source material, read it, understand it, then write your essay referring to it. OU provide you with a textbook which summarizes the major research on each topic and you write your essay based on that condensed version. It's all secondhand with no independent analysis expected or given credit for. You cannot practise law in that way. You need to know where to look for precedent and legislation and how to interpret it for yourself. Once in practise there is no condensed version for you to go to to get the answers. That is why IMO OU is not a good way to study for lawyers. However that is a personal opinion and doesn't detract for the fact that recruiters are overwhelmed with candidates and are looking for people from a top ranked university with a minimum 2:1

Oldernotwiser

Nicki wrote: »

No I am remembering the recruitment process when I was working in the legal profession.

I am studying psychology at Birkbeck in the evenings. I have compared the BIrkbeck materials and way of study with the OU for the same subject. Birkbeck and most good universities expect you to go to the original source material, read it, understand it, then write your essay referring to it. OU provide you with a textbook which summarizes the major research on each topic and you write your essay based on that condensed version. It's all secondhand with no independent analysis expected or given credit for. You cannot practise law in that way. You need to know where to look for precedent and legislation and how to interpret it for yourself. Once in practise there is no condensed version for you to go to to get the answers. That is why IMO OU is not a good way to study for lawyers. However that is a personal opinion and doesn't detract for the fact that recruiters are overwhelmed with candidates and are looking for people from a top ranked university with a minimum 2:1

We're going to have to agree to differ on this. Some of what you say is true but some of it isn't. It's common in undergraduate study these days for tutors to give out photocopied extracts from the relevant materials which is really little different from the way that the OU puts it all together as abstracts.

I agree that recruiters are overwhelmed with candidates but fortunately there are many who realise that someone who has studied part time, often whilst holding down a full time job and with domestic responsibilities is going to be hard working and motivated way beyond the typical 21 year old graduate.

(I always thought I was pretty traditional and elitist about education but you beat me into a cocked hat!:))

Nicki

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

(I always thought I was pretty traditional and elitist about education but you beat me into a cocked hat!:))

:mad::mad::mad:

The very first thing I said in my first post on this thread was that the OU was an excellent way of getting a degree and qualifying for many many professions.

If it is elitist to advise someone that an OU degree will make it hard to enter ONE profession, of which I have personal and direct knowledge, and to give advice of a way which will enable the OP to achieve his dreams then I hold my hands up. But if I am wrong about how an OU degree is regarded in the profession, and OP takes my advice and goes the ILEX route, he will still qualify as a solicitor if he passes his exams and in roughly the same timescale, and be able to practise. If you are wrong, and he takes your advice, he will devote a minimum of 3 years study, plus financial outlay, and will end up with a degree but not qualified to practise. I guess its his choice on whose advice to take, but I am not going to debate this point with you any further as it is clear you have no knowledge of the job sector we are discussing and are just going to continue to advance your prejudices about the OU.

SarEl

Nicki wrote: »

I don't come from a silver spoon background either but was lucky enough to study at degree level somewhere acceptable to recruiters and so they overlooked my lack of class

My "first class" university were lucky to get me, and so I overlooked the fact that most of the students wouldn't have got into a third class university if they hadn't been spoon fed their education and grades at great expense to their privileged parents

bristol_pilot

Given the standard of work produced by most of the solicitors I have instructed over the years, the OP would appear to be ideally suited to that profession.

shegirl

Nicki wrote: »

No I am remembering the recruitment process when I was working in the legal profession.

I am studying psychology at Birkbeck in the evenings. I have compared the BIrkbeck materials and way of study with the OU for the same subject. Birkbeck and most good universities expect you to go to the original source material, read it, understand it, then write your essay referring to it. OU provide you with a textbook which summarizes the major research on each topic and you write your essay based on that condensed version. It's all secondhand with no independent analysis expected or given credit for. You cannot practise law in that way. You need to know where to look for precedent and legislation and how to interpret it for yourself. Once in practise there is no condensed version for you to go to to get the answers. That is why IMO OU is not a good way to study for lawyers. However that is a personal opinion and doesn't detract for the fact that recruiters are overwhelmed with candidates and are looking for people from a top ranked university with a minimum 2:1

Ok,I know you're right in the large on the way OU do their degrees (tried one myself in my new subject area and certainly for my course it would've been a degree in reading the basic books ou sent me..so I'm now doing criminology through a brick uni but by distance and it's done the same as degrees usually are -you need to research and use many sources) but I was wondering if they provide the LLB in that basic 'spoon fed' manner? Just curious,as I know some OU degrees seem to be better than others and surely with such a subject they couldn't deliver it like that?

shegirl

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

We're going to have to agree to differ on this. Some of what you say is true but some of it isn't. It's common in undergraduate study these days for tutors to give out photocopied extracts from the relevant materials which is really little different from the way that the OU puts it all together as abstracts.

I agree that recruiters are overwhelmed with candidates but fortunately there are many who realise that someone who has studied part time, often whilst holding down a full time job and with domestic responsibilities is going to be hard working and motivated way beyond the typical 21 year old graduate.

(I always thought I was pretty traditional and elitist about education but you beat me into a cocked hat!:))

I guess the difference between handing out photocopies (that's quite sad in itself I find) and the OU way of working is that you still need to work out what is relevant and use those sources given rather than reading chapters that easily spell everything out to you to the point you don't really have to do anything and re-write what you've read (my personal experience of OU).Either way,niether is ideal!

On your second point I agree with that and I think it's great that many normal unis now offer distance learning with the expectation that you work as you would if attending campus,as if you put that together with the committment and drive to do it it's great.Sadly,and as much as I hate to disagree with you:o,to me,from personal experience,I think the respect OU has comes purely from the fact that people do do it while having many other responsibilities rather than that combined with skill set and knowledge,but then there are no sanctions for missing deadlines and extensions are easily granted too so I think it can give a bit of a false representation of the person studying if they're a bit of a slacker but aren't marked down for such,it shows committment to get a degree but not always for studying and working to deadlines.

But that's from my personal experience of them and I have to say from my personal experience I wouldn't recommend them to anyone apart from those who don't know what they want to do,aren't particularly academic,those who do it just through interest and those who wouldn't need it for a new career.

Oldernotwiser

shegirl wrote: »

I guess the difference between handing out photocopies (that's quite sad in itself I find) and the OU way of working is that you still need to work out what is relevant and use those sources given rather than reading chapters that easily spell everything out to you to the point you don't really have to do anything and re-write what you've read (my personal experience of OU).Either way,niether is ideal!

On your second point I agree with that and I think it's great that many normal unis now offer distance learning with the expectation that you work as you would if attending campus,as if you put that together with the committment and drive to do it it's great.Sadly,and as much as I hate to disagree with you:o,to me,from personal experience,I think the respect OU has comes purely from the fact that people do do it while having many other responsibilities rather than that combined with skill set and knowledge,but then there are no sanctions for missing deadlines and extensions are easily granted too so I think it can give a bit of a false representation of the person studying if they're a bit of a slacker but aren't marked down for such,it shows committment to get a degree but not always for studying and working to deadlines.

But that's from my personal experience of them and I have to say from my personal experience I wouldn't recommend them to anyone apart from those who don't know what they want to do,aren't particularly academic,those who do it just through interest and those who wouldn't need it for a new career.

I would've hated studying through the OU myself but I've seen it change so many people's lives for the better that, professionally, I can only praise it.

Unfortunately, much study at bricks and mortar universities nowadays can be described as you have (few sanctions and deadlines, study not aimed at the academic). If it's a while since you were an undergraduate, you could well be very shocked.