legal training solicitor

moneysaver129

hawk30 wrote: »

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...

You can take it how you want but the words 'I'm not a lawyer' mean to most sensible people she didn't want to work as a solicitor:rotfl:

As to your other comment I think that better applies to you than me.

jacques_chirac

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Errrrrrr.....

The LPC can be useful for professionals other than solicitors.

You have still presented no evidence to support your allegation. Surely you understand the importance of being able to substantiate what you say?

moneysaver129

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

I didn't say anything about poorer scripts.....again observation.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

moneysaver129

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Just wanted to alert people to some dodgy tactics being used by some colleges and 'uni's' offering the Legal Practice Course (LPC) and CPE (conversion course). Some of these courses often over recruit students (to get funds in) but use the extra numbers as fail fodder. The people with jobs in Law already and those with sponsoring firms (especially those with a Training Contract) are treated far more favourably when it comes to exam time. Those involved will deny this to the death. But be aware - you have been warned! If you find this hard to believe ask those who are about to take your money how many without training contracts pass the exams. Then check the figures before letting your money go. Also count your fingers. Good luck!

I have restated the original comments for those interested in saving some money and avoid potentially being misled by spurious courses . Judging by the spite in some comments we can only assume some of these people are well employed in some capcity by those behind the LPC or at least benefit form it. Their vehemence should also ring alarm bells in those considering such a course.

moneysaver129

jacques_chirac wrote: »

The LPC can be useful for professionals other than solicitors.

You have still presented no evidence to support your allegation. Surely you understand the importance of being able to substantiate what you say?

The best substantiation is my suggestion for potential candidates to get in writing how many with TC's survive the course compared to those without. I cannot see what is possible wrong with this? Only for those with something to hide possibly? The only gainers would be those about to part with thousands of pounds. The reason for my post. Only those with spurious motives could possibly object to that. I can only judge that I must have put my finger on a raw nerve judging by some of the comments. This speaks for itself. I am gratified that my observation may help many others who are not connected to what can be seen as a Legal education gravy train.

moneysaver129

I mentioned nothing about the LPC uses elsewhere. But obviosuly most people intend taking the LPC to become Solicitors. That is a fact. Or is someone going to dispute that? ;-)

poet123

moneysaver129 wrote: »

I have restated the original comments for those interested in saving some money and avoid potentially being misled by spurious courses . Judging by the spite in some comments we can only assume some of these people are well employed in some capcity by those behind the LPC or at least benefit form it. Their vehemence should also ring alarm bells in those considering such a course.

You have given no evidence to back your assertion. Others on this thread have also had first hand experience of these courses and they disagree with you. I personally know of four young law graduates without training contracts who passed their LPC.

In fact, I would venture the opinion (based on anecdotal evidence) that more and more of those who do the LPC do not actually have such contracts as fewer firms wish to pay for the qual and so actively recruit for training contracts candidates who already have it.

If there is a higher pass rate by those with a TC it could be for several reasons; they are more motivated as their job depends on it, they are brighter, they are better supported etc, etc.

jacques_chirac

moneysaver129 wrote: »

The best substantiation is my suggestion for potential candidates to get in writing how many with TC's survive the course compared to those without. I cannot see what is possible wrong with this? Only for those with something to hide possibly? The only gainers would be those about to part with thousands of pounds. The reason for my post. Only those with spurious motives could possibly object to that. I can only judge that I must have put my finger on a raw nerve judging by some of the comments. This speaks for itself. I am gratified that my observation may help many others who are not connected to what can be seen as a Legal education gravy train.

Even if there is a correlation between pass rates and already having a TC, there could be many reasons for that. Private school pupils get better GCSE results than those at state schools, are you suggesting they are fixed as well? In fact I expect they also did better on the LPC ... Another fix?

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Nicki

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

If those who had training contracts submitted stronger scripts than those without then they deserved to pass the LPC. No? You could only prove the corruption you allege if those with training contracts were submitting weaker scripts.

In what way does the provider of the LPC benefit if they favour those with Training contracts with a third party given there is no obvious legal or fiduciary relationship between them?

Yorkie1

OP, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

You have repeatedly failed to provide any evidence to justify your rant. Your credibility is completely shot to pieces.

And, of course, your argument completely fails to take account of those individuals who might have been completing the LPC and not require a training contract because they are exempt through the CILEx route to admission as a solicitor.