legal training solicitor

Nicki

moneysaver129 wrote: »

They are not anonymous. Each centre marks its own papers. Only a few are sent outside to ensure quality and consistency. The majority (nearly all) of those with TC's are given easy marking (benefit of the doubt) and those without made to resit on some pretext or other. Easy.

How do you know this? Have you seen the papers submitted by those with training contracts and compared them with those submitted without?

I am very dubious about your claims even though it is 20 years since I did my LPC. However I well remember people with training contracts failing the course and having to clear their desk the next day as the results don't come out until after you start work. This happened at both the big city firms I worked at in my career.

Is it not more plausible to assume that as the competition for training contracts is so high, that those who have done well in their exams historically and therefore have good degree results from good universities and a track record of good A levels are more likely both to have a training contract and to do well at the LPC? Good exam technique is not necessarily linked to overall intelligence or aptitude for the subject, so people who appear to do well in tutorials and in class might suck at exams and vice versa. (I was one of those who did little work at university and college of law, and had no natural instinct for the subject, but had good exam technique and much to the disgust of my contemporaries at the time came out with much better results than people who were in actual fact much better lawyers than I was but found it harder to deliver the goods under exam conditions)

mishelly

It is widely known (and published) that there are less training contracts available than people passing the LPC. Therefore, it seems to me that paying a huge sum to LPC providers to do the course when you don't have a training contract is just silly.

When I finished my law degree there was no way I could afford to do the LPC and did not want to take the risk of getting a loan with no guarantee that I would be in any better position when I finished the course. I went straight into employment as a Legal Assistant and worked my way up. It was the best thing to do as I got all my training paid for by my employer whilst earning at the same time and gaining real practical experience.

Yorkie1

moneysaver129 wrote: »

I had to laugh. I can see many of the contributors have not actually attended one of these 'courses'..

Glad to see that your grasp on evidence is improving throughout the thread.

How on earth can you know who, or who has not, attended one of these courses?

sp1987

Sounds a lot like "bitter I didn't get a tc" to me.

And yes, thank you, before you say it, I've attended said course.

Interestingly, a colleague of mine on said course got the same grade as me yet only one of us had a TC whilst on the course. What could that mean?! :rotfl:

Annisele

mishelly wrote: »

Therefore, it seems to me that paying a huge sum to LPC providers to do the course when you don't have a training contract is just silly.

I don't think it's silly - but then I did exactly that. I also got a distinction, so the OP's paper switching people must have missed me.

I did my LPC part time, so there was no issue with getting into debt (I just paid for it out of income). I'm not a lawyer, but the stuff I learnt in my LPC was and continues to be really useful to me at work.

moneysaver129

Didn't say anything about paper switching?

They didn't need to make you resit as by your own admission you did not want to work as a solicitor. Rather proves my point.

moneysaver129

Nicki wrote: »

How do you know this? Have you seen the papers submitted by those with training contracts and compared them with those submitted without?

I know papers were marked by individual centres because they told us openly. Only a few were sent away to be moderated. This is normal practice in all exams not just law. It is cheaper also.

hawk30

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Didn't say anything about paper switching?

They didn't need to make you resit as by your own admission you did not want to work as a solicitor. Rather proves my point.

Where did she say she didn't want to work as a solicitor? That's the whole point of the LPC. I took it to mean that she didn't get a tc or changed her mind about working in law.

I'm surprised you passed the LPC. I don't think any difficulties came from the lack of a tc...

Nicki

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Nicki wrote: »

How do you know this? Have you seen the papers submitted by those with training contracts and compared them with those submitted without?

I know papers were marked by individual centres because they told us openly. Only a few were sent away to be moderated. This is normal practice in all exams not just law. It is cheaper also.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

How do you know that those with training contracts submitted poorer exam scripts than those without but were given higher marks? That is the million dollar question and one you haven't given any evidence to support.

moneysaver129

Annisele wrote: »

I don't think it's silly - but then I did exactly that. I also got a distinction, so the OP's paper switching people must have missed me.

I did my LPC part time, so there was no issue with getting into debt (I just paid for it out of income). I'm not a lawyer, but the stuff I learnt in my LPC was and continues to be really useful to me at work.

Errrrrrr.....